ICANN|ARCHIVES

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers

ICANN PUBLIC FORUM, PART II
THURSDAY, 30 MARCH 2006
WELLINGTON, NEW ZEALAND

>>VINT CERF: GOOD MORNING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
WELCOME TO THE SECOND SESSION OF THE PUBLIC FORUM.
WE HAVE QUITE A FEW THINGS TO COVER THIS MORNING, SO I'M GOING TO TRY TO MOVE THINGS SWIFTLY ALONG.
I'D LIKE TO BEGIN WITH THE BOARD GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE REPORT, WHICH WILL BE PRESENTED BY ALEJANDRO PISANTY, THE VICE CHAIR OF ICANN.
ALEX.

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: THANK YOU, VINT.
THE BOARD GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE HAS BEEN -- SINCE OUR LAST MEETING IN VANCOUVER, HAS BEEN INTERACTING MOSTLY BY E-MAIL AND HERE IN A FACE-TO-FACE MEETING.
WE HAVE DISCUSSED A NUMBER OF ISSUES.
NEXT SLIDE.
THE FIRST OF THEM IS FOR MEETING PREPARATION.
WE HAVE -- WE'RE GOING TO PROPOSE TO THE BOARD TODAY TO ANALYZE A PROPOSAL FOR THE PREPARATION NEEDED FOR BOARD MEETINGS, WHICH WILL PROPOSE THAT 21 DAYS BEFORE THE MEETING, THE CHAIR OF THE BOARD CALLS THE BOARD TO PROPOSE -- BOARD MEMBERS TO PROPOSE AGENDA ITEMS AND DISCUSS -- START THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE AGENDA.
SINCE THE BOARD IS NOT VERY -- IT'S NOT A GOOD USE OF THE BOARD'S TIME TO SPEND A LOT OF HOURS AND E-MAIL EXCHANGES IN DISCUSSING THE AGENDA FULLY, WE WILL HAVE THIS DISCUSSION, AND THEN WE'LL LEAVE FOR THE -- THE PROPOSAL WILL ASK FOR THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE TO HAVE A CALL SPECIFICALLY ON THE AGENDA AND DECIDE WHAT WILL BE THE AGENDA FOR THE MEETING.
AND TEN DAYS -- THAT WILL BE TWO WEEKS BEFORE THE MEETING.
AND THEN FOUR DAYS LATER OR FIVE DAYS LATER, DEPENDING ON HOW YOU COUNT, -- APOLOGIES -- THE AGENDA WILL BE PUBLISHED WITH ITEMS.
THE PEOPLE WHO ARE IN CHARGE OF THE ITEMS, THE STAFF SUPPORT DESIGNATED, IF THERE IS ANY, AND THE SUPPORTING MATERIALS.
AND THERE WILL BE A CALL FOR RESOURCING THIS WORK APPROPRIATELY IN ORDER FOR THIS TO BE POSSIBLY FULFILLED.
THIS SOUNDS VERY NICE AND GOOD, AND AMONG THE DISCUSSIONS THAT WE WILL HAVE IS THAT, FOR EXAMPLE, TODAY, WE WILL WOULD HAVE TO START DISCUSSING THE AGENDA FOR OUR NEXT MEETING.
SO THIS IS ABOUT THE REALISM OF THE WHOLE PROPOSAL.
BUT WE BELIEVE THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO BEGIN TO STICK TO.
ABOUT REPORTS FROM MEETINGS AND MINUTES, WHICH HAVE BEEN A VERY, VERY VEXING QUESTION, THERE ARE SEVERAL FACTORS THAT ARE BEING DISCUSSED IN THE BOARD GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE.
ONE OF THEM IS THAT REAL OFFICIAL MINUTES CAN ACTUALLY ONLY BE PUBLISHED AFTER THEY'RE APPROVED BY THE FULL BOARD.
SO THAT WOULD STILL LEAVE US ON A ONE-MONTH TYPE OF SCHEDULE FOR PUBLISHING THE MINUTES.
SO WE ARE WORKING ON THE ADEQUACY OF PRELIMINARY REPORTS THAT WILL TELL THE COMMUNITY THE MAIN RESULTS OF WHAT WAS DISCUSSED AND POSSIBLY THE THINKING -- AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE OF THE THINKING THAT WENT INTO THEM.
AND ALL OF THIS IS SUBJECTED TO A LIABILITY ANALYSIS WHICH IS STILL IN DISCUSSION.
DIFFERENT WAYS TO REPORT THINGS ARE SHOWN TO CAUSE DIFFERENT LEVELS OF LIABILITY.
SOME OF THEM WE ARE ALREADY TESTING.
SO WE WILL BE STUDYING THE CONSEQUENCES OF WHAT'S ALREADY OUT THERE.
THE NEXT ONE.
THERE'S FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE POPULATION OF COMMITTEES, WHICH IS ONE OF THE MAIN TASKS OF THE BOARD GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE.
WHAT WE'LL BE PROPOSING FOR DISCUSSION IN THE COMING DAYS OR HOURS, DAYS, OR WEEKS, WILL BE THE DESIRABILITY OF DEADLINES FOR COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS FOR A DIRECTOR WHO ENTERS THE BOARD ANEW, WHETHER WE SHOULD HAVE A DEADLINE THERE OR IS THAT MICROMANAGEMENT.
BUT WE CERTAINLY WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE WHO ARE ABLE AND WILLING TO DO COMMITTEE WORK AS THEY JOIN THE BOARD ARE ASSIGNED TO AT LEAST ONE COMMITTEE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
THERE WAS ALSO DISCUSSION ABOUT THE PROCEDURES FOR POPULATING THE COMMITTEES.
AND THERE WILL BE SOME MORE ONGOING.
BUT, BASICALLY, THE MESSAGE WILL BE, STICK TO THE PROCEDURES AND TRY TO DO THIS WITH REASONABLE PROMPTNESS.
THE FINAL POINT THAT HAD BEEN PROPOSED FOR DISCUSSION FOR THE LAST WEEKS WAS COMMITTEE REPORTS.
THESE ARE ALSO DESIRABLE BEFORE THE MEETINGS, LIKE THIS -- THE ONE I AM PRESENTING NOW ON THE MORNING WE HAVE WITH COMMITTEE REPORTS, ONE WOULD WISH -- WHAT WE FIND DESIRABLE IS TO HAVE A SIMILAR TIME LINE FOR BOARD ANNOUNCEMENTS FOR -- FOR COMMITTEE WORK AS THE AGENDA WE'RE PROPOSING FOR ADVANCE NOTICE OF THE -- OF THE BOARD.
WE FIND THAT THIS IS NOT REALLY ALWAYS POSSIBLE.
WE HAVE HAD SEVERAL INSTANCES, FOR EXAMPLE, THE MEETINGS COMMITTEE HAS HAD SEVERAL INSTANCES WHERE IT'S ONLY ABLE TO PRODUCE A REPORT TO THE BOARD THE SAME DAY IT MEETS.
AND THAT MAY EVEN BE THE SAME DAY THE BOARD IS ALREADY MEETING.
BUT THIS COMES TOGETHER WITH A CALL FOR MORE WORK TO BE DONE BY COMMITTEE AND LESS BY THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AND THE BOARD, TRY TO PUBLISH -- WELL, NEXT POINT IS THAT WE WILL TRY TO PUBLISH TO THE BOARD AT LEAST, AND, IF POSSIBLE, AND RELEVANT, PUBLICLY, FOR WHAT ARE THE BOARD GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE'S TASKS ITSELF.
THE COMMITTEE HAS TO DO CERTAIN THINGS IN ADVANCE OF THE ANNUAL MEETING, FOR EXAMPLE, SOME OF THEM TWO MONTHS IN ADVANCE.
SO WE WILL TRY TO HAVE THE TIME LINE FOR THIS YEAR.
AGAIN, THERE WAS A DISCUSSION ON THE DESIRABILITY OF ASSIGNING SPECIFIC TASKS, AND, IF NECESSARY, OTHER RESOURCES, FOR EACH OF THE COMMITTEES OF THE BOARD.
THIS IS ALREADY DONE, IN FACT, IN MANY WAYS.
I MEAN, THE COMMITTEES GET A LOT OF SUPPORT.
BUT IT WILL BE DESIRABLE TO HAVE THIS ASSIGNED IN MAYBE MORE SPECIFIC AND EXPLICIT WAYS.
THAT'S MY REPORT, SIR.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, ALEX.
I DON'T SEE QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE -- OR FROM THE BOARD.
SO LET'S MOVE ON NOW.
THE NEXT REPORT COMES FROM SUSAN CRAWFORD, WHO IS THE CHAIR OF THE CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST COMMITTEE.
SUSAN.

>>SUSAN CRAWFORD: THANK YOU, VINT.
THE BOARD COMMITTEE ON CONFLICTS OF INTEREST MET ON THE 28TH OF MARCH HERE IN WELLINGTON.
THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD ARE -- OF THIS COMMITTEE ARE ON THE NEXT SLIDE.
WE WERE ALL PRESENT FOR THIS MEETING.
WHAT WE HAD DONE IN PREPARATION FOR THIS MEETING IS TO CALL FOR ALL OF THE DIRECTORS AND LIAISONS TO FILL OUT A RATHER DETAILED FORM EXPLAINING THEIR RELATIONSHIPS, AFFILIATIONS, AND WHAT BEARING ANY OF THOSE RELATIONSHIPS HAD ON THE WORK THAT ICANN CARRIES OUT.
WE COLLECTED THAT INFORMATION.
AND DURING THE MEETING ON THE 28TH, WE WENT THROUGH ALL OF THOSE STATEMENTS THAT HAD BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE DIRECTORS AND LIAISONS AND DISCUSSED THEM.
NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
WE DISCUSSED THE QUESTION WHETHER DIRECTORS WHO CHOOSE TO ABSTAIN FROM VOTING DUE TO POTENTIAL CONFLICTS, AS REQUIRED BY OUR BYLAWS, SHOULD ALSO REFRAIN FROM PARTICIPATING IN RELATED BOARD DISCUSSIONS.
THIS QUESTION HAS NOT, I SUGGEST, BY FINALLY RESOLVED.
THERE'S A DIVIDE OF VIEWS ON THIS QUESTION.
AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO DISCUSS IT.
WE TAKE VERY SERIOUSLY THE DIRECTORS' OBLIGATION NOT TO VOTE ON A MATTER IN WHICH THEY HAVE MATERIAL PERSONAL FINANCIAL INTEREST.
AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST SERVES AS A SORT OF NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH, LOOKING OUT VERY CAREFULLY FOR THOSE SORTS OF CONFLICTS WHEN THEY ARISE AND BEING ABLE TO DISCUSS THEM WITH RELEVANT DIRECTORS.
AND I THINK IT'S FAIR TO SAY THAT ALL OF MY COLLEAGUES ON THE BOARD TAKE THESE ISSUES EXTREMELY SERIOUSLY.
WE WERE ALSO BRIEFED BY THE GENERAL COUNSEL WITH REGARD TO HIS CONVERSATIONS WITH THE SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS ABOUT GOING THROUGH A SIMILAR PROCESS.
AND WE ARE SUPPORTING HIM IN HIS EFFORTS TO DO THAT AND ALSO WILL BE PERSONALLY AVAILABLE TO WORK THROUGH THIS SET OF QUESTIONS WITH SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS.
WE THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT AS PART OF THE BACKGROUND OF THE RICH AND VARIED DISCUSSIONS WE HAVE AT ICANN, THAT THE TAPESTRY OF AFFILIATIONS BE KNOWN TO THE PEOPLE WHO ARE ENGAGING IN THOSE CONVERSATIONS.
THIS CONCLUDES MY REPORT.
THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SUSAN.
I APPRECIATE THE BREVITY AND CLARITY OF YOUR REPORT.
THE NEXT REPORT COMES FROM THE FINANCE COMMITTEE.
HAGEN, I WONDER IF I COULD ASK YOU TO PRESENT THAT.

>>HAGEN HULTZSCH: READY FOR TAKEOFF.
FIRST OF ALL, APOLOGIZE, MY LITTLE RUSTY VOICE.
WE ARE REALLY SAVING MONEY AND WE ARE NOW SAVING THE WATER FOR THOSE BEING ON THE BOARD.
THAT'S ONE RESULT OF GOOD FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT.
THE FINANCE COMMITTEE WAS MORE OR LESS CONTINUOUSLY ACTIVE SINCE THE LAST REPORT IN VANCOUVER.
MYSELF BEING THE CHAIR, I WAS IN CONTINUOUS DIALOGUE WITH MELANIE KELLER, OUR CFO.
AND THE OTHER MEMBERS WERE ALSO INFORMED, ESPECIALLY IN A CONFERENCE CALL WHICH I WILL MENTION IN A FEW MINUTES.
THE MEMBERS OF THE FINANCE COMMITTEE ARE RAIMUNDO BECA, MOUHAMET DIOP, MYSELF, JOICHI ITO, AND MIKE PALAGE.
WE MET FOR A TELEPHONE CONFERENCE ON MARCH 9TH WITH, LET'S SAY, A KIND OF DENSE AGENDA, REVIEWING THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE SEVEN MONTHS HAVING STARTED IN 1ST JULY LAST YEAR AND COMPARED REVENUES AND EXPENSES AGAINST WHAT WE HAVE BUDGETED.
WE REVIEWED THE CASH FLOW AND ANALYZED IT AND MADE PROJECTIONS FOR THE WHOLE FISCAL YEAR BASED ON THE NUMBERS IN THE FORECAST PROVIDED BY THE CFO.
WE REVIEWED THE PRELIMINARY REVENUE PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006/2007, AND ALSO ANTICIPATED, LET'S SAY, SOURCES OF REVENUE, INCLUDING ALL THE CONSIDERATIONS WE HAVE CURRENTLY GOING ON.
WE DISCUSSED THE OPERATING PLAN AND EXPENSE -- AND THE RELATED EXPENSE BUDGET FOR THIS COMING FISCAL YEAR.
WE TALKED ABOUT THE -- WE TALKED ABOUT THE COMMUNITY CONSULTATION PLAN.
WE TALKED ABOUT THE STAFFING AND ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE, AS THE CEO HAS REPORTED ALREADY YESTERDAY.
AND WE ALSO TALKED ABOUT A DRAFT ON OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVES, WITH THE PRELIMINARY DEFINITION OF MAJOR OBJECTIVES TO BE SEPARATELY BUDGETED.
YOU KNOW, THAT WAS ALWAYS A CONSIDERATION COMING FROM YOU TO US.
SEPARATELY BUDGETED AND MANAGED.
THIS IS A PART OF THE MANAGEMENT INITIATIVE WHICH WAS DISCUSSED AT THE VANCOUVER MEETING.
WE ALSO HAD OBJECTIVES EXPLICITLY LINKED TO KEY ELEMENTS OF THE STRATEGIC PLAN SO WE CAN BETTER UNDERSTAND WHERE AND WHY WE SPEND THE MONEY WHICH IS COMING FROM OUR CONSTITUENCIES TO US.
AND WE IDENTIFIED THE, LET'S SAY, RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO THIS.
NEXT, PLEASE.
THE MEETING DURING THIS VENUE HERE IN WELLINGTON WAS ON TUESDAY.
WE REVIEWED THE CCTLD CONTRIBUTIONS AND THE STATUS OF THE DISCUSSIONS WITH THE CCNSO THAT WAS ALSO PART OF THE SUBJECT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD WITH CCNSO YESTERDAY.
WE REVIEWED AND IDENTIFIED THE RISKS AND REVENUE PLAN FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2006/2007.
WE REVIEWED THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE EIGHT MONTHS, ONE MONTH MORE AGAINST THE OTHER MEETING OF EARLY MARCH, WITH COMPARISON OF REVENUES AND THE EXPENSES AGAINST BUDGET.
AND AS USUAL, THERE ARE VARIATIONS.
WE DISCUSSED THE OPERATING PLAN AND EXPENSE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2006/2007.
WE HAD A STATUS OF FEEDBACK TO DATE OF THE OPERATING PLAN THROUGH THE ONLINE FORUM AND THE SCHEDULED CONSULTATIONS IN WELLINGTON.
WE AGAIN TALKED ABOUT STAFFING AND ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE.
THAT IS A SENSITIVE ISSUE REGARDING FINANCES.
AND WE DISCUSSED THE TIMETABLE FOR POSTING A REVISED OPERATING PLAN, FOLLOWED BY THE PROPOSED BUDGET ON OR POSSIBLY BEFORE 17 MAY, AS REQUIRED BY THE ICANN BYLAWS.
NEXT.
THE SUMMARY IS, REGARDING EXPENSES, WE HAVE -- WE HAVE A RESPONSIBLE CASH MANAGEMENT EMPLOYED BY THE ORGANIZATION TO MAINTAIN OR, LET'S SAY TO START TO MAINTAIN ADEQUATE CASH RESERVES.
YOU REMEMBER THAT WE STRESSED THIS SITUATION, AND WE SHOULD FIND WAYS FOR LONG TERM, WE SHOULD HAVE A REASONABLE CASH RESERVE.
THE ACTUAL EXPENDITURES BY THE END OF FEBRUARY, THAT WAS EIGHT MONTHS OF THE 12-MONTH YEAR, ARE UNDERRUNNING BY ABOUT 22%.
THE SAVINGS ARE BALANCED AMONG TRAVEL, PERSONNEL, AND ADMINISTRATION LINE ITEMS.
ACTUALLY, HIRING SPENDING WAS UNDER PLAN, BECAUSE ON MANAGED AND INTENTIONALLY, MANAGED DELAYS THROUGH DECEMBER UNTIL REVENUES WERE SECURED FOR REGISTRAR BUDGET APPROVAL.
YOU REMEMBER WE HAD A KIND OF DELAY OF SIX MONTHS.
AND THAT'S WHY WE DECIDED TO DELAY THE HIRING, SO WE WOULD NOT POSSIBLY RUN INTO A, LET'S SAY A CASH PROBLEM.
EXPENSES ARE ALWAYS BEING TAILORED TO MATCH THE REVENUES.
THAT'S A MAJOR RESPONSIBILITY OF EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT, CAUSING THESE DELAYS IN HIRING WHICH I JUST MENTIONED.
YOU SHOULD BE AWARE THAT 36% OF THE TOTAL EXPENSES IS RELATED TO HUMAN RESOURCE, TO PERSONNEL.
NEXT, PLEASE.
KIND OF SUMMARY, REVENUE AND CASH FLOW.
THE REGISTRAR INVOICING COMPLETED FOR FIRST HALF OF FISCAL YEAR 2005/2006, FOLLOWING THE APPROVAL OF BUDGETED REVENUES AFTER THE VANCOUVER MEETING IS UNDERWAY AND HAS DONE WELL.
THE REGISTRAR APPLICATION AND ACCREDITATION FEES ARE OVERRUNNING THE BUDGET.
APPLICATIONS AND RELATED REVENUES SHARPLY INCREASED IN JANUARY 2006.
FROM A REVENUE POINT OF VIEW, THAT'S GOOD.
WE HAVE TO SEE TO UNDERSTAND THE REASONS.
AND ICANN CONTINUES TO PURSUE THE -- LET'S SAY FURTHER DIVERSITY OF REVENUE SOURCES BY TALKING ABOUT THE AGREEMENTS WITH THE RIRS, BY A POLICY FOR ICANN FUNDING DEVELOPED BY THE CCNSO, AND BY THE FRAMEWORK OF ACCOUNTABILITY WITH THE CCTLDS.
AND CERTAINLY THERE ARE OTHER, LET'S SAY, FUTURE PERSPECTIVES WHICH WE WILL HAVE TO DISCUSS.
THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, HAGEN.
I DON'T SEE QUESTIONS, SO WE'LL GO ON.
THE NEXT REPORT COMES FROM THE MEETINGS COMMITTEE.
AND I'LL CALL ON MIKE PALAGE TO GIVE THAT REPORT.

>>MICHAEL PALAGE: THANK YOU, VINT.
THE FOLLOWING ARE THE MEMBERS OF -- ACTUALLY, WE HAVE THE ICANN BOARD FINANCE COMMITTEE.
THERE YOU GO.
THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS WHEN I DON'T -- WHEN I DO THIS EARLY IN THE MORNING.
THIS IS ACTUALLY THE MEETINGS COMMITTEE, NOT THE FINANCE.
AND, HAGEN, I WILL GIVE YOU FULL COPYRIGHT.
THIS IS A DERIVATIVE WORK OF YOUR SLIDES.
ACTUALLY.

>>VINT CERF: ACTUALLY, THIS IS THE COMMITTEE THAT HELPS SPEND THE MONEY THAT THE FINANCE COMMITTEE PRODUCES.
SO THERE'S A CONNECTION.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: HAGEN, I KNOW A GOOD COPYRIGHT LAWYER IF....

>>MICHAEL PALAGE: OKAY.
ONE OF THE UNIQUE THINGS ABOUT THIS COMMITTEE IS, WE ACTUALLY HAVE ONE REPRESENTATIVE FROM EACH OF THE ICANN REGIONS, WHICH MAKES SCHEDULING TELECONFERENCES A LITTLE DIFFICULT.
AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'VE ACTUALLY BEEN ABLE TO DO SINCE OUR MEETING IN VANCOUVER IS ACTUALLY ACHIEVE ALL OF OUR, IF YOU WILL, DISCUSSIONS, DIALOGUES, VIA E-MAIL.
SO WE THINK THE USE OF ASYNCHRONOUS COMMUNICATIONS HAS ACTUALLY BEEN VERY POSITIVE.
THE FOLLOWING ARE THE POINTS THAT WE'D LIKE TO CONVEY TO THE COMMUNITY REGARDING OUR ACTIONS SINCE THE VANCOUVER MEETING.
FIRST, ICANN HAS SELECTED SAO PAULO, BRAZIL, FOR ITS ANNUAL MEETING, SCHEDULED FROM DECEMBER 2ND THROUGH DECEMBER 8TH, 2006.
THE SECOND ACTION ITEM IS THAT THE ICANN BOARD WILL CONVENE A BOARD RETREAT MAY 18TH THROUGH THE 20TH IN SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA.
THE THIRD ACTION ITEM, ICANN HAS TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED ITS FIRST QUARTER 2007 REGIONAL MEETING FOR MARCH 26TH THROUGH MARCH 30TH IN 2007.
THIS IS TO BE HELD IN EUROPE.
BECAUSE OF THE CLOSE PROXIMITY OF THE IETF MEETING, ICANN STAFF IS EVALUATING THE OPTION OF POTENTIALLY SHIFTING THIS REGIONAL MEETING TO MINIMIZE THE INCONVENIENCE OF PARTICIPANTS THAT WILL ATTEND BOTH THE IETF AND ICANN MEETING.
AND A POINT TO PETER, YOU'LL NOTICE HOW FIRST QUARTER, AS OPPOSED TO SPRING.
I'M NOT HEMISPHERICALLY CHALLENGED.
MOVING ALONG, STAFF, THE ICANN STAFF, HAS UNDERTAKEN A FOLLOW-UP VISIT TO THE MARRAKESH VENUE AND IS WORKING VERY CLOSELY WITH THE HOST AND SPONSOR, AND STEPS ARE IN PLACE TO ENSURE THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE A SUCCESSFUL MEETING.
THE ICANN MEETINGS COMMITTEE IS ALSO DISCUSSING POTENTIAL 2008 MEETING DATES.
IT IS THE INTENTION OF THE MEETINGS COMMITTEE TO HAVE BEFORE THE BOARD FOR ACTION BY MAY 10TH, 2006, THOSE DATES THAT WILL BE SCHEDULED FOR THE 2008 CALENDAR YEAR.
THE FOLLOWING SLIDE, BYLAW METRICS, OR WHAT I CALL THE NJERI RIONGE SLIDE.
WHAT THE MEETINGS COMMITTEE DID WAS WE WANTED TO LOOK AT THE BYLAWS AND SEE HOW WE'RE MEASURING UP TO WHAT THE BYLAWS REQUIRE US TO DO.
ONE OF THE POSITIVES THAT WE'VE SEEN IS THAT THE ICANN SECRETARIAT HAS, IF YOU WILL, BEEN VERY SUCCESSFUL IN POSTING ON THE ICANN WEB SITE ALL OF THE MEETING DATES FOR THE 2006 CALENDAR YEAR, SO THAT THERE'S OPEN AND TRANSPARENCY AS TO WHEN THE BOARD WILL BE MEETING.
THERE HAS BEEN PROMPT PUBLICATION OF THE BOARD'S AGENDA, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE III, SECTION 4.
THE ONLY EXCEPTION TO THIS HAS BEEN IN CONNECTION WITH THE REGIONAL MEETINGS, WHERE THE AGENDA GENERALLY GETS POSTED ONE OR TWO DAYS BEFORE.
SO WE'RE SORT OF WORKING ON THAT.
THE -- A THIRD POINT HERE, AND THIS REALLY GOES TO SORT OF THE BOARD AS A WHOLE, BUT WE'VE FALLEN A LITTLE SHORT IN THE POSTING OF THE MINUTES.
AGAIN, I BELIEVE ALEJANDRO HAD SPOKEN TO THIS ISSUE IN CONNECTION WITH HIS REPORT.
AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE, THE BOARD, ARE LOOKING TO IMPROVE.
AS FAR AS ACTION ITEMS, THERE WERE TWO ACTION ITEMS THAT THE MEETINGS COMMITTEE HAS TAKEN HERE DURING OUR MEETING IN WELLINGTON.
THE FIRST IS THAT WE'VE DIRECTED THE STAFF TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PUBLICATION OF AN RFP FOR THE 2007 MEETING VENUES, AND WE'VE PROVIDED THE FOLLOWING TIME LINE.
WE INTEND TO HAVE THIS RFP PUBLISHED BY MAY 1ST, WITH A DEADLINE OF JUNE 15TH FOR THE RECEIVAL OF PROPOSALS.
STAFF WILL BE CIRCULATING THIS AMONG POTENTIAL PARTIES OF INTEREST, CCTLD ADMINISTRATORS, PREVIOUS INDIVIDUALS WHO HAD SUBMITTED PROPOSALS TO THE DIFFERENT CONSTITUENCIES.
SITE VISITS WILL BE CONDUCTED AMONG POTENTIAL APPLICANTS IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE MOROCCO, MARRAKESH, MEETING, WITH A DECISION TO BE MADE BY THE BOARD AT ITS AUGUST 16TH, 2006 TELECONFERENCE IN CONNECTION WITH THE MARCH AND JUNE 2000 [SIC] MEETINGS.
THE SECOND ACTION ITEM IS THAT THE MEETINGS COMMITTEE HAS APPROVED STAFF PROPOSAL FOR THE CREATION OF A PROGRAMS COMMITTEE.
THIS WILL BE USED TO INCORPORATE STAKEHOLDER INPUT INTO INCREASING THE FUNCTIONALITY AND EFFICIENCY OF ICANN'S MEETINGS.
EACH SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION WILL BE ASKED TO PROVIDE A REPRESENTATIVE OR REPRESENTATIVES TO SERVE ON THIS COMMITTEE, WHICH WILL BE COORDINATED BY DIANE SCHROEDER ON BEHALF OF THE ICANN STAFF.
IN THE PAST, THE MEETINGS COMMITTEE HAS TRIED DIFFERENT MECHANISMS -- SURVEYS, TALKING TO DIFFERENT PEOPLE, SOLICITING INPUT -- AND THIS IS SORT OF OUR ATTEMPT TO BE MORE PROACTIVE TO MAKE THESE MEETINGS MORE PRODUCTIVE FOR FIRST-TIME ATTENDEES AS WELL AS, IF YOU WILL, THE HARD-CORE ICANN ATTENDEE.
AND JUST ONE FINAL NOTE.
ACTUALLY, AND THIS IS A PERSONAL NOTE OUT TO AMADEU ABRIL I ABRIL. AMADEU PRIOR TO THIS MEETING HAD A PERFECT ATTENDANCE RECORD. 24 STRAIGHT ICANN MEETINGS. THIS IS ACTUALLY HIS FIRST WHERE HE HASN'T ATTENDED, SO I JUST WANTED TO NOTE THAT FOR THE RECORD.
THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, MICHAEL.
WOULD I BE CORRECT IN ASSUMING THAT YOU HAVE AN UNBROKEN RECORD OF ATTENDANCE?

>>MICHAEL PALAGE: NO. I MISSED THE VERY FIRST ONE, SINGAPORE, I MISSED ACCRA BECAUSE I DIDN'T GET THE SHOTS IN TIME. AND THEN I WAS UNABLE TO MAKE THE EMERGENCY AMSTERDAM MEETING DURING THE EVOLUTION REFORM. SO 22 OUT OF 25.

>>VINT CERF: NOT A BAD RECORD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MICHAEL.
I WANT TO ESPECIALLY ENDORSE THE PROGRAM COMMITTEE IDEA. AND I PARTICULARLY HOPE THAT THE PEOPLE HERE IN THIS AUDITORIUM AND THOSE WHO ARE LISTENING AND THOSE WHO ARE PART OF OUR GENERAL COMMUNITY WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THEIR INPUTS ON THE NATURE OF LENGTH, DURATION, CONTENT, FORMAT OF OUR MEETINGS.
MICHAEL, IS THERE GOING TO BE PLACE FOR SOME SORT OF PUBLIC INPUT TO THE PROGRAMS COMMITTEE?

>>MICHAEL PALAGE: THAT'S, IF YOU WILL, TO BE DETERMINED.
AS I SAID, THE MEETINGS COMMITTEE HERE HAD SOME DISCUSSION. DIANE WILL BE MOVING FORWARD WITH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THAT SHORTLY FOLLOWING THIS MEETING.

>>VINT CERF: OKAY. THANK YOU. I THINK IT'S PRETTY IMPORTANT, AND I'M SURE YOU WOULD AGREE, TO HAVE THE PARTICIPANTS AT THE MEETING MAKE THEIR INPUTS AS WELL.
OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MICHAEL.
THE NEXT REPORT IS FROM THE RECONSIDERATION COMMITTEE. I'LL CALL UPON VANDA SCARTEZINI TO MAKE THAT REPORT. VANDA.

>>VANDA SCARTEZINI: YEAH, THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. GOOD MORNING, EVERYBODY.
WELL, I'M AFRAID THIS WILL TAKE MUCH MORE TIME THAN THE PREVIOUS REPORTS, BUT I BELIEVE DUE TO THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS MATTER, IT'S WORTH THE TIME.
SO SINCE MY ENGLISH SOMETIMES SOUNDS AS NOT A LANGUAGE IN SOME WORDS, I WILL HAVE THE HELP OF SOME SLIDES, AND YOU READ THE MINUTES.
SO THE FIRST ONE WAS WE HAVE RECEIVED TWO REQUESTS FOR RECONSIDERATION. AND THIS IS OUR ANALYSIS.
ON 10 MARCH 2006, JONATHON NEVETT, VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF POLICY COUNSEL FOR NETWORK SOLUTIONS, SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF 19 REGISTRARS A JOINT REQUEST THAT ICANN RECONSIDER ITS 28 FEBRUARY 2006 VOTE APPROVING THE VERISIGN SETTLEMENT.
THIS CAN BE SEEN IN THE ICANN.ORG/COMMITTEES/RECONSIDERATION/NETWORKSSOLUTIONSREQUEST.
ON 16 MARCH 2006, THE PARTIES SUBMITTED AN AMENDED RECONSIDERATION REQUEST, ADDING 4 ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR PARTIES TO THE REQUEST.
SEE AGAIN IN .ICANN.ORG/COMMITTEES/RECONSIDERATION.
THE REQUEST SPECIFICALLY ASKS THAT THE BOARD STAY THE DECISION AND RE-VOTE AFTER RECEIVING INPUT FROM THE DOJ, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, AS WELL AS OTHER EXPERTS ON COMPETITION AND SECURITY ISSUES.
THERE IS A LOT OF -- IN THIS WEB SITE, YOU CAN SEE ALL THE GROUNDS FOR REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO HIGHLIGHT ONE OF THOSE. THAT'S MATERIAL INFORMATION CONCERNING THE POTENTIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS THAT THE SETTLEMENT WOULD HAVE ON COMPETITION. ALSO, THE REQUEST PROVIDES NO SEARCH MATERIAL INFORMATION FOR THE BOARD.
SO JUST PASSING THROUGH, THERE IS A LOT OF GROUNDS FOR RECONSIDERATION. AND I GO, PASSING THROUGH, ANOTHER SLIDE. OKAY.
SO LET'S GO TO THE ANALYSIS OF THE GROUNDS.
SO FIRST, MOST OF THE INFORMATION THAT THE REQUEST REFERS TO WAS PRESENTED TO AND DISCUSSED BY THE BOARD AT LENGTH PRIOR TO ITS 28 FEBRUARY 2006 VOTE.
ONE, THE BOARD SPENT CONSIDERABLE TIME DISCUSSING VERISIGN'S MARKET POSITION AND THE RATIONALES OF FAVORING -- FAVOR OF AND IN OPPOSITION TO ICANN'S ROLE AS A PRICE REGULATOR GENERALLY AND SPECIFICALLY WITH RESPECT TO VERISIGN, INCLUDING WHETHER VERISIGN SHOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO RAISE THE PRICE OF .COM NAMES OR -- AND IN WHAT AMOUNT.
THE BOARD WAS INFORMED OF STAFF DISCUSSION WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE REGARDING THE EARLY DRAFT OF THE REGISTRY AGREEMENT.
THE BOARD DISCUSSED AT LENGTH THE RENEWAL PROVISION OF 2001 .COM AGREEMENT AND COMPARED THEM TO THE RENEWAL PROVISIONS OF THE NEW AGREEMENT.
SECOND, AT LEAST SEVEN OF THE PARTIES JOINTLY SUBMITTING THE REQUEST PROVIDED ESSENTIALLY THE SAME OR SIMILAR INFORMATION TO THE BOARD PRIOR TO THE BOARD'S DECISION TO APPROVE THE VERISIGN AGREEMENT.
YOU CAN SEE THAT ON WWW.ICANN.ORG/CORRESPONDENCE/REGISTRARS-TO-CERF14FEBO6 PDF.
THIRD, THE REQUEST FAILS TO DEMONSTRATE, AND IT MUST UNDER THE BYLAWS, HOW ANY OF THE INFORMATION NOT CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD MIGHT HAVE BEEN MATERIAL TO ITS DECISION.
FOR EXAMPLE, THE REQUESTING PARTIES DO NOT, ONE, PROVIDE ANY ALLEGED KEY FACTS ABOUT VERISIGN'S MARKET POSITION. REQUEST, PAGE 2.
TWO, PROVIDE AN ALLEGED MATERIAL INFORMATION CONCERNING THE POTENTIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS THAT THE SETTLEMENT WOULD HAVE ON COMPETITION.
THIRD, STATE WHAT ECONOMIC THEORY THE REQUESTING PARTIES RELY ON TO SUPPORT THEIR STATEMENT THAT "WELL-ESTABLISHED ECONOMIC THEORY PREDICTS THAT VERISIGN WILL RAISE PRICE AS LONG AS THOSE PRICE INCREASES ARE PROFITABLE."
FOUR, STATE THAT WHAT INFORMATION THEY POSSESS TO SUPPORT THEIR CLAIM THAT IT'S HIGHLY LIKELY THAT THE REGISTRANTS WOULD CONTINUE TO PAY SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER PRICES TO MAINTAIN THEIR .COM NAMES INSTEAD OF SWITCHING TO LESS DESIRABLE TLDS.
AND FIVE, PURPORTED EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE THAT ACCURATELY REFLECTS MARKET DYNAMICS.
AND FINALLY, AND FOR OUR GROUP, THE MOST IMPORTANTLY, THE REQUEST FAILS TO DEMONSTRATE, AND IT MUST UNDER THE BYLAWS, WHY THE REQUESTING PARTIES COULD NOT AND DID NOT BRING THIS INFORMATION TO THE BOARD'S ATTENTION PRIOR TO ITS 28 FEBRUARY APPROVAL OF THE SETTLEMENT.
TO THE CONTRARY, THE REQUESTING PARTIES HAD AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO BRING THIS INFORMATION TO THE BOARD'S ATTENTION, INCLUDING THE TWO PUBLIC NOTICE PERIODS THAT THE BOARD ESTABLISHED FOR COMMENTS ON THE OCTOBER 2005 VERSION OF THE PROPOSED AGREEMENT AND THE JANUARY 2006 VERSION OF THE SAME AGREEMENT.
THE ONLY INFORMATION THAT THE REQUESTING PARTIES STATES THEY COULD NOT PROVIDE WAS THE VIEWS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ON PRICING.
BUT THESE VIEWS, TO THE EXTENT AVAILABLE AND RELEVANT, WERE RECEIVED BY THE BOARD AND THE ISSUES WERE, IN FACT, DISCUSSED AT LENGTH.
SO, TAKING IN ACCOUNT ALL THOSE STATED BELOW, ABOVE, OUR RECOMMENDATION FROM THE COMMITTEE IS THE COMMITTEE CONCLUDES THAT THERE ARE NO GROUNDS TO PROCEED AS EACH OF THE GROUNDS WAS EITHER, ONE, ALREADY CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD OR, TWO, COULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO THE BOARD'S ATTENTION PRIOR TO 28 FEBRUARY 2006 APPROVAL.
MOREOVER, THE REQUEST SHOULD BE DENIED FOR THE ADDITIONAL REASON THAT MUCH OF THE REQUEST FAILS TO PROVIDE ANY INFORMATION AT ALL, LET ALONE DEMONSTRATE HOW THE PURPORTED INFORMATION IS MATERIAL.
THE SECOND ONE -- THE SECOND RECOMMENDATION -- WHERE IS THE OTHER? I AM WAITING FOR HELP WITH THE SLIDES.
SO I START TO READING.
BACKGROUND.
ON 17 OF MARCH 2006, DANNY YOUNGER, A .COM REGISTRANT, SUBMITTED A REQUEST THAT ICANN RECONSIDER ITS 28 FEBRUARY 2006 VOTE APPROVING THE VERISIGN SETTLEMENT. SEE THE RECONSIDERATION REQUEST IN ICANN.ORG/COMMITTEES/RECONSIDERATION/YOUNGER-REQUEST-17MAR.
SPECIFICALLY, MR. YOUNGER ASKS THAT THE BOARD AWAIT A FORMAL RESPONSE FROM THE GAC ON PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES RAISED BY THE ICANN-VERISIGN SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BEFORE PROCEEDING FURTHER.
ANALYSIS OF THE GROUNDS. SO WE HAVE ALSO A LOT OF THE SAME GROUNDS.
SO THE ANALYSIS OF THE GROUNDS, FIRST, THE REQUEST IS STATED POLICY CONCERNS ARE NOT PROPER TOPICS FOR RECONSIDERATION UNDER ARTICLE IV, SECTION 2.2 OF ICANN BYLAWS. AS STATED EARLIER, THE ONLY APPROPRIATE TOPIC OF RECONSIDERATION OF AN ICANN BOARD ACTION OR INACTION IS WHETHER THE BOARD FAILED TO CONSIDER MATERIAL INFORMATION IN REACHING ITS DECISION.
THE REQUEST'S STATED POLICY CONCERNS DO NOT PRESENT ANY MATERIAL INFORMATION, AND THUS DO NOT MEET THIS STANDING REQUIREMENT.
SECOND, NEARLY ALL OF THE INFORMATION THAT IS PRESENTED BY THE REQUEST WAS PRESENTED TO AND DISCUSSED BY THE BOARD AT LENGTH PRIOR TO ITS 28 FEBRUARY 2006 VOTE IN SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.
IN PARTICULAR, THE BOARD HAS SPENT CONSIDERABLE TIME DISCUSSING PUBLIC COMMENTS POSTED ON ICANN'S WEB SITE REGARDING THE ICANN-VERISIGN SETTLEMENT. INDEED, A SUMMARY OF ALL COMMENTS WERE ANALYZED, POSTED ON ICANN'S WEB SITE, AND DISTRIBUTED TO THE BOARD.
IT'S ALL IN OUR PAGE, TOPICS/VERISIGN SETTLEMENT COMMENTS SUMMARY.
THE BOARD WAS INFORMED OF AND CONSIDERED THE GNSO POLICY DISCUSSIONS, AS PART OF THEIR DELIBERATIONS LEADING TO AND DURING THE 28 FEBRUARY 2006 VOTE.
THE BOARD WAS ALSO INFORMED OF AND CONSIDERED WRITTEN AND/OR VERBAL COMMENTS FROM BOTH THE GNSO AND THE GAC REGARDING THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT.
AGAIN, IT'S POSTED ON OUR ICANN.ORG/TOPICS/
VERISIGN-SETTLEMENT COMMENTS-SUMMARY 2006.
THIRD, WHILE THE REQUEST CLAIMS THAT THE BOARD FAILED TO CONSIDER, I QUOTE, "FULLY DEVELOPED ADVICE OF EITHER THE GNSO OR THE GAC," THE REQUEST DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE, AND IT MUST UNDER THE BYLAWS, HOW "FULLY DEVELOPED ADVICE" WOULD MATERIALLY ADD TO OR DIFFER FROM THE STATEMENTS ALREADY EXPRESSED BY THE GNSO, THE GAC, OR ANY OTHER STATEMENT BY THE ICANN COMMUNITY TO THE BOARD.
AND FINALLY, AND MOST SIGNIFICANT, THE REQUEST FAILS TO EXPLAIN WHY MR. YOUNGER, OR THE GAC OR THE GNSO, COULD NOT AND DID NOT BRING THE INFORMATION TO THE BOARD'S ATTENTION PRIOR TO ITS 28 FEBRUARY VOTE.
TO THE CONTRARY, THE ICANN COMMUNITY HAD AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO BRING ALL INFORMATION TO THE BOARD'S ATTENTION, INCLUDING THE TWO PUBLIC NOTICE PERIODS THAT THE BOARD ESTABLISHED FOR COMMENTS ON OCTOBER 2005 AND JANUARY 2006.
ADDITIONALLY, THERE WAS A PUBLIC FORUM DECEMBER 2005, ICANN MEETING IN VANCOUVER, CANADA, DURING WHICH ICANN DISCUSSED THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT WITH THE ICANN COMMUNITY.
ICANN ALSO HELD SEPARATE CONVERSATIONS WITH SEVERAL OF ICANN'S ORGANIZATIONS, COMMITTEES, CONSTITUENCIES, AND ADVISORY GROUPS.
AGAIN, IT'S ALL POSTED IN OUR WEB SITE.
THE FACT THAT THE GNSO, ALAC, CCNSO, AND THE VARIOUS CONSTITUENCY GROUPS EACH PROVIDED WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE SETTLEMENT, FAR IN ADVANCE OF THE 28 FEBRUARY 2006 VOTE, DEMONSTRATES THAT SUFFICIENT TIME EXISTED FOR ALL ICANN COMMITTEES AND ORGANIZATION TO BE HEARD, AND THAT THE ICANN BOARD DID NOT ACT IN HASTE IN APPROVING THE SETTLEMENT.
AGAIN, TOPICS/VERISIGN-SETTLEMENT IN OUR WEB SITE.
THE REQUEST'S POSITION THAT ICANN IS REQUIRED TO WAIT TO ACT ON THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT UNTIL THE GAC PROVIDES "FULLY DEVELOPED ADVICE" HAS NO FOUNDATION IN THE BYLAWS.
INDEED, SUCH A READING OF THE BYLAWS WOULD ALLOW THE GAC TO THROTTLE, OR PERMANENTLY STALL, ANY VOTE BY THE ICANN BOARD THAT INVOLVES PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES BY ENCOURAGING GAC TO DELAY ANY RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD.
SO THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION IS THE FOLLOWING.
FOR THE ABOVE REASON, THE RECONSIDERATION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS THAT THE BOARD TAKE NO ACTION ON RECONSIDERATION REQUEST RC 06-2. THE COMMITTEE CONCLUDES THAT THERE ARE NO GROUNDS TO PROCEED, AS EACH OF THE GROUNDS IS EITHER, ONE, NOT AN APPROPRIATE SUBJECT FOR RECONSIDERATION. TWO, ALREADY CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD. THREE, COULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO THE BOARD'S ATTENTION PRIOR TO 28 FEBRUARY 2006 APPROVAL.
MOREOVER, THE REQUEST FAILS TO DEMONSTRATE HOW THE GNSO OR THE GAC "FULLY DEVELOPED ADVICE" WOULD MATERIALLY ADD TO THE VOLUMINOUS STATEMENTS ALREADY EXPRESSED TO THE ICANN BOARD.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, VANDA. I'M SURE THAT THAT WAS NOT AN EASY MEETING OF THE RECONSIDERATION COMMITTEE.
I WANT TO -- YES, I SEE YOUR HAND UP, RAIMUNDO.
I WANT TO JUST MAKE AN OBSERVATION. PETER, I SEE YOUR HAND AS WELL.
I WON'T TRY TO GUESS ALL OF THE MOTIVATIONS THAT LED TO THOSE RECONSIDERATION REQUESTS, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO OBSERVE THAT SOME OF THE CONCERN EXPRESSED IN THEM MIGHT HAVE BEEN REDUCED OR MITIGATED BY SUBSTANTIALLY BETTER INFORMATION COMING FROM THE BOARD ABOUT ITS RATIONALE FOR REACHING CONCLUSIONS WITH REGARD TO THE VERISIGN.
[ APPLAUSE ]

>>VINT CERF: AND THAT -- THAT IN ADDITION TO ACCEPT- -- OR AT LEAST RECEIVING THE ADVICE OF THE RECONSIDERATION COMMITTEE, THAT WE READ THESE RECONSIDERATION REQUESTS AS AN INDICATION OF GREAT INTEREST IN BETTER TRANSPARENCY AND PARTICULARLY, GENERALLY SPEAKING, BETTER COMMUNICATION BETWEEN OURSELVES AND THE REST OF THE COMMUNITY WE SERVE.
SO EVEN IF THE BOARD ACCEPTS THESE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE RECONSIDERATION COMMITTEE, I HOPE WE WILL ALSO TAKE TO HEART THE ORIGINS OF SOME OF THESE CONCERNS. AND AS THE BOARD GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE HAS ALREADY REPORTED, IMPROVEMENT IN OUR ABILITY TO REPORT ON OUR THINKING AND OUR ACTIONS WILL BE WELL RECEIVED.
LET ME ASK RAIMUNDO, AND THEN PETER TO MAKE THEIR COMMENTS.
RAIMUNDO.

>>RAIMUNDO BECA: THANK YOU, VINT. I WOULD LIKE TO RECALL THAT THE -- I AM A MEMBER OF THIS COMMITTEE, AND I DIDN'T VOTE IN FAVOR. I ABSTAINED IN THE VOTE OF THIS RECONSIDERATION RESOLUTION.
I DIDN'T SPECIFY IN THE COMMITTEE THE REASONS WHY I WAS ABSTAINING, AND I WON'T MAKE IT HERE EITHER. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SAY IT WOULD BE INCONSISTENT WITH WHAT I SAID IN MY STATEMENT DURING THE VOTE ON THE 28TH OF FEBRUARY ABOUT THE ROLE OF THE DOC AND DOJ, WHICH I PERSONALLY DON'T KNOW EXACTLY, WHICH WAS TO APPROVE ALL THE WORDS IN THIS RESOLUTION.
THANKS.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, RAIMUNDO.
PETER.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: THANK YOU, VINT. JUST A PERSONAL COMMENT FIRST. THERE'S SOME DELICIOUS IRONY THAT IN HAVING VOTED AGAINST THIS, AS MANY OTHERS ON THE BOARD DID, HAVING VOTED AGAINST THIS PROPOSAL FOR THE VERY REASONS THAT ARE OUTLINED IN THIS REQUEST, I THEN HAVE TO VOTE AGAINST A RECONSIDERATION BECAUSE THIS WAS THE MATERIAL THAT WAS BEING CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD, TO THE EXTENT THAT IT WAS PROPERLY DEFINED AND MADE AVAILABLE IN ADVANCE.
I JUST WANT TO PICK UP A POINT THAT WAS MADE IN GROUND "A" OF THE NSI REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERING, WHICH WAS A COMPLAINT THAT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO DETERMINE FROM THE LACK OF PUBLICATION OF THE MINUTES.
AS FAR AS RECONSIDERATION COMMITTEE IS CONCERNED, OF COURSE THAT'S NOT A GROUND FOR RECONSIDERATION. THE PRIMARY GROUND FOR RECONSIDERATION IS THAT WE HAVEN'T RECEIVED INFORMATION THAT WE COULD HAVE GOT AND THAT, THROUGH NO FAULT OF THE APPLICANT FOR RECONSIDERATION WE HAVEN'T RECEIVED. IT'S NOT A GROUND FOR RECONSIDERATION THAT WE HAVEN'T TOLD YOU WHAT WE HAVE BEEN THINKING ABOUT.
BUT AS THE MEETINGS COMMITTEE HAS REPORTED AND AS THE BGC, AS THE BOARD GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE HAS REPORTED, SO, TOO, THE RECONSIDERATION COMMITTEE HAS NOTED AND IS DISSATISFIED WITH THE ISSUE OF THE MINUTES.
WE DO ACCEPT THAT THERE IS AN OBLIGATION UNDER THE BYLAWS TO ACCOMPLISH THIS SORT OF MATERIAL, UNDER THE GENERAL TRANSPARENCY OBLIGATION, AND OUR COMMITTEE IS ALSO DETERMINED THAT MINUTES WILL PROMPTLY BE PUBLISHED.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, PETER.
AND THANK YOU AGAIN, VANDA, FOR THAT REPORT.
I DON'T SEE ANY OTHER COMMENTS, SO LET'S MOVE ON.
THE NEXT REPORT COMES FROM NJERI RIONGE, AND IT IS THE AUDIT COMMITTEE'S REPORT. SO I WILL CALL ON NJERI TO REPORT THAT.

>>NJERI RIONGE: THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN.
I JUST WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT THERE ARE TWO NEW MEMBERS ON THE AUDIT COMMITTEE DURING THIS PERIOD, AND THE TWO MEMBERS, TWO NEW MEMBERS ARE SUSAN CRAWFORD AND PETER DENGATE THRUSH. THE REST OF THE MEMBERS REMAIN THE SAME.
THE AUDIT COMMITTEE HAVE REVIEWED THE ACTION POINTS AND SUGGESTIONS OF THE LAST MEETING HELD IN VANCOUVER, CANADA, AND FARTHER TO THE ACTION POINTS IN OUR PREVIOUS MEETINGS. IN THIS WELLINGTON MEETING WE HAVE REVIEWED AND UPDATED THE SCHEDULES OF THE DELIVERABLES WITH DEFINITE TIME LINES IN ORDER TO MEET ICANN'S EXPECTATIONS SET WITHIN MANDATORY THE AUDIT COMMITTEE.
FIRSTLY, THERE'S THE WHOLE ISSUE OF THE INDEPENDENT AUDIT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2004 AND 2005 AND ITS DELAY.
AND THE AUDIT FIELD WORK WAS COMPLETED IN DECEMBER 2005 BY THE NEW AUDITORS, MOSS ADAMS.
HOWEVER, THE WRAP-UP OF THE FINAL AUDIT REPORT HAVE BEEN DELAYED DUE TO THE SCHEDULING OF CONFLICTS, AND THE INITIAL WINDOW FOR THE COMPLETION BY MOSS ADAMS WAS DECEMBER 2005.
UNFORTUNATELY, DURING DECEMBER, THE PRIORITY FOR ICANN FINANCE STAFF WAS RESOLUTION OF CASH FLOWS RELATED TO PROJECTS SUCH AS THE VERIFICATION OF REGISTRARS AND REGISTRY INVOICING.
FOLLOWING THE DECEMBER WINDOW, TIME ALLOCATION BY MOSS ADAMS HAS BEEN DIFFICULT GIVEN STAFF'S COMMITMENTS TO OTHER AUDIT ENGAGEMENTS AND RELATIVE SIZE OF THE ICANN AUDIT. NOT TO MENTION THAT WE ALSO HAVE A CHANGE OF MANAGER BECAUSE THERE IS A HAND-OVER PROCESS THAT ACTUALLY TOOK OVER BETWEEN DIANE SCHROEDER AND MELANIE.
AND DURING THIS MEETING, WE ALSO HAVE THE -- THE AUDIT COMMITTEE HAVE HAD A CONFERENCE CALL WITH MOSS ADAMS TO DISCUSS AUDIT DELAYS AND AGREE SPECIFIC COURSES OF ACTION FOR COMPLETION OF THE 2004-2005 AUDIT, AND IDENTIFY ANTICIPATED IMPROVEMENTS TO INCREASE THE TIME LINES AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE NEXT AUDIT ENGAGEMENT.
ALTHOUGH THE AUDIT HAS BEEN DELAYED, MOSS ADAMS INDICATED IN OUR TODAY'S TELEPHONE CONVERSATION THAT THEY STILL ANTICIPATE A CLEAN OPINION.
TIMING FOR COMPLETION OF THE AUDIT REPORT HAS BEEN AGREED WITH MOSS ADAMS FOR EARLY MAY 2006.
THE FINAL AUDIT REPORT WILL THEN BE CIRCULATED TO THE AUDIT COMMITTEE FOR REVIEW AND SUBSEQUENT SUBMISSION TO THE ICANN BOARD.
WE HAVE ALSO COMMITTED AS A COMMITTEE THAT WE WILL FOLLOW THROUGH THE PROCESS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ACTUALLY ACHIEVE THE MAY 2006 DEADLINE.
IN REFERENCE TO THE INDEPENDENT FINANCIAL AUDIT FOR 2005-2006, THE AUDIT COMMITTEE SUPPORTED THE RECOMMENDATION BY ICANN STAFF TO PROCEED WITH ENGAGEMENT OF MOSS ADAMS TO PERFORM THE INDEPENDENT AUDIT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR.
UPON CONCLUSION OF THE 2004-2005 AUDIT REPORT, MANAGEMENT WILL NEGOTIATE AN AUDIT ENGAGEMENT LETTER AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH MOSS ADAMS.
A FACE-TO-FACE MEETING WILL BE HELD BETWEEN MOSS ADAMS AND THE AUDIT COMMITTEE MEMBERS SCHEDULED FOR MAY 2006, AS MICHAEL ALLUDED THE BOARD WILL ACTUALLY BE IN MARINA DEL REY FOR THE BOARD RETREAT. AND JUST BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE BOARD RETREAT, THE COMMITTEE WILL ACTUALLY HAVE A FACE-TO-FACE MEETING WITH MOSS ADAMS.
AND WE HAVE AGREED THAT WE WILL ENSURE A TIMELY COMPLETION OF THE FISCAL YEAR OF THE AUDIT 2005-2006 AUDIT.
ICANN STAFF HAS IMPLEMENTED SEVERAL IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING PROCESSES ALREADY IN PLACE FOR THE REGULAR MONTHLY GENERAL ACCEPTED ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES, CLOSE WITH ALL APPROPRIATE SUPPORTING SCHEDULES, AND INTERIM AUDIT WORK AND PLANNING TO BE COMPLETE BY MOSS ADAMS BY JUNE 2006 PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE YEAR FIELD WORK.
THE PBC, WHICH IS THE PREPARED BY CLIENT, LIST OF REQUIRED AUDIT SCHEDULES REFINED AND TAILORED SPECIFICALLY TO ICANN FOLLOWING COMPLETION OF THE FIRST YEAR'S FIELD WORK BY MOSS ADAMS, AND THEN ALL THE PBC REQUIREMENTS TO BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE AUDIT WORK IN AUGUST 2006.
AND AN INCREASED STAFFING PROPOSED TO ALLOW ADEQUATE DEDICATION TO FINANCE PERSONNEL TO THE AUDIT TEAM WITHIN THE FIELD WORK COMMENCEMENT.
THERE ACTUALLY IS A CAPACITY ISSUE WITHIN THE FINANCING ENVIRONMENT WITHIN ICANN IN TERMS OF RESOURCES, AND SO WE HOPE THAT THEY WILL HAVE INCREASED THE PERSONNEL DURING THE PERIOD OF THIS AUDIT.
THE AUDIT TIMING SPECIFICALLY AGREED AND SCHEDULED WITH MOSS ADAMS TO ALLOW FOR ENSURANCE OF FINAL AUDIT REPORT OCTOBER 31ST IN 2006 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE BYLAWS.
IN REFERENCE TO THE FINANCIAL -- THE NEXT -- YEAH. REFERENCE TO FINANCIAL CONTROLS AND BANKING, THE NEW CFO HAS IMPLEMENTED SEVERAL ENHANCEMENTS TO FINANCIAL CONTROLS IN THE AREAS OF ACCOUNTS PAYABLE, TRAVEL EXPENSES AND REIMBURSEMENTS. MONTHLY CLOSE PROCEDURES, INVOICING, AND SEGREGATION OF DUTIES WITHIN ADDITIONAL STAFFING AVAILABLE.
FURTHER IMPLEMENT IMPROVEMENTS IN FINANCIAL CONTROLS AND INTERNAL PROCESSES CONTINUE, AND SUCH ENHANCEMENTS WILL BE DOCUMENTED IN THE FORM OF CHANGES TO POLICIES AND PROCEDURES.
THE AUDIT COMMITTEE IS COMMITTED TO THE PROCESS AND THE COMPLETION OF THE FINAL POLICIES WITHIN THIS ENVIRONMENT GOING FORWARD.
IN REFERENCE TO BANKING, ICANN STAFF HAS WORKED WITH THEIR CURRENT BANKING PARTNER TO EFFECT SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS AND FEE REDUCTIONS, PARTICULARLY AS THEY RELATE TO FOREIGN CURRENCY. PAYMENTS TO MORE FULLY SUPPORT ICANN'S CONTINUED INTERNATIONALIZATION.
PROGRESS HAS BEEN ENCOURAGING AND THE CFO RECOMMENDS ICANN CAPITALIZE ON THIS EXPANDING RELATIONSHIPS TO ENHANCE CASH MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES AND ENSURE CONTINUED BANKING COOPERATION. AND WITH THIS VIEW, WE ARE NOT ACTUALLY INTENDING TO CHANGE THE BANKERS AT THIS STAGE, ALTHOUGH THERE WAS A PROPOSAL PREVIOUSLY TO LOOK AT OPPORTUNITIES TO CHANGE THE BANKER FROM AMERICAN BANK.
IN CONCLUSION, THE AUDIT COMMITTEE IS COMMITTED TO MEETING THE ACTION PLANS FOR THE COMING YEAR, 2006/2007, WHICH WE BELIEVE WILL OFFER ICANN BOARD AND STAFF AND COMMUNITY AT LARGE THE PROPER SUPPORT AS PER THE ICANN BYLAWS.
THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, NJERI.
NOT SEEING QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD.
SO, PAUL, ARE YOU PREPARED NOW TO OFFER THE PRESIDENT'S STRATEGIC REPORT, WHICH WE WERE UNABLE TO GET TO YESTERDAY?

>>PAUL TWOMEY: SORRY, CHAIRMAN.
I SEEM TO BE -- IN A TRANSFER TO A MACINTOSH, I SEEM TO BE CONTINUALLY CHALLENGED.
THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN.
TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO GIVE THE BOARD AND COMMUNITY AN UPDATE ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PRESIDENT'S STRATEGY COMMITTEE.
THE BOARD WILL RECALL THAT THERE WAS A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD IN VANCOUVER WHICH IT'S WORTH GOING THROUGH IN SOME DETAIL.
THE FIRST WHEREAS REINFORCES THE ICANN MISSION.
THE SECOND WHEREAS REINFORCES THE PRESIDENT AND THE BOARD, AND VERY CAREFULLY, IT SAYS THAT, THE PRESIDENT AND THE BOARD, ARE COMMITTED TO THE BOTTOM-UP STRATEGIC AND OPERATIONAL PLANNING, DRAWING ON THE INPUTS OF THE SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS, ADVISORY COMMITTEES, AND MEMBERS OF THE ICANN COMMUNITY.
AN IMPORTANT PROVISION FOR THIS, BECAUSE THERE'S NO INTENTION OR REALITY TO UNDERMINE IN ANY WAY WHAT'S BEEN A VERY SUCCESSFULLY WORKED-THROUGH PROCESS OVER THE LAST 12 MONTHS OR MORE TO HAVE A GOOD BOTTOM-UP PROCESS ON STRATEGIC PLANNING.
BUT WHEREAS THE COMMUNITY WOULD ALSO BENEFIT FROM THE ADVICE OF A GROUP RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING STRATEGIC ISSUES FACING ICANN, THESE OBSERVATIONS OR RECOMMENDATIONS WILL CONTRIBUTE TO THAT STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS.
SO HAVING A GROUP WHO CAN ACTUALLY BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THINKING THROUGH STRATEGIC ISSUES, AND, IMPORTANTLY, NOT NECESSARILY BEING -- BEING A MIX OF PEOPLE WHO ARE BOTH REGULARLY INSIDE THE PROCESS, BUT ALSO SOME WHO ARE NOT, BUT MORE OUTSIDE IN THE BROADER ASPECTS OF THE -- OF OUR ARENA.
THERE WAS A RESOLUTION THAT THE PRESIDENT IS CORRECTED TO APPOINT BY THE 28TH OF FEBRUARY A PRESIDENT'S STRATEGIC COMMITTEE TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR GIVING ADVICE TO THE PRESIDENT AND THE BOARD ON STRATEGY ISSUES.
IF I CAN SHARE WITH YOU SOME SELECTION CONSIDERATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN UTILIZED IN APPROACHING PEOPLE FOR SUCH A COMMITTEE.
AND IT IS A MIX OF A NUMBER OF THINGS.
IT IS A BROAD EXPERIENCE OF THE ICANN EXPERIENCE AND HISTORY.
SO THAT'S OBVIOUSLY AN IMPORTANT ONE OF THE CONSIDERATIONS FOR MEMBERSHIP.
THE OTHER ONE IS AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE ISSUES OF INTERNET GOVERNANCE.
THIRD IS STRONG COMMITMENT TO THE MULTISTAKEHOLDER MODEL.
AND THAT INCLUDES, OBVIOUSLY, GOOD UNDERSTANDINGS OF ISSUES FROM A PERSPECTIVE OF CIVIL SOCIETY, THE TECHNICAL COMMUNITY, THE WHOLE MULTISTAKEHOLDER APPROACH THAT WE HOLD SO DEAR.
BROAD EXPERIENCE IN BUSINESS, PARTICULARLY BUSINESS IN THE INTERNET SPACE, SO THE TECHNOLOGY SPACE WHICH IS DRIVING ISSUES SURROUNDING THE EVOLUTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT FOR THE DNS.
TECHNICAL UNDERSTANDING, AND INFLUENCE WITH KEY DECISION-MAKERS.
THE PROCESS OF APPROACHING PEOPLE TO BE PART OF THIS COMMITTEE HAS BEEN, FIRST OF ALL, JUST, OBVIOUSLY, VERBAL DISCUSSION, THEN VERBAL AGREEMENT, AND THEN WRITTEN AGREEMENT.
I NEED TO REPORT TO YOU THAT THAT PROCESS IS STILL UNDERWAY.
AND THAT I WILL BE -- GOING TO GO THROUGH ANNOUNCEMENT OF MEMBERSHIP.
BUT IT IS NOT COMPLETED.
THE MEMBERSHIP DOES NEED TO BE REASONABLE IN NUMBER.
SO THERE'S AN IMPORTANT THING HERE ABOUT BEING EFFECTIVE AS WELL AS HAVING A BROAD RANGE.
BUT IT IS NOT LIMITED.
AND THE CHAIRS, IN DISCUSSING THE COMMITTEE, HAVE COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE ENGAGE KEY FIGURES IN THE COMMUNITY ON SPECIFIC TOPICS WITHOUT NECESSARILY HAVING TO PUT THOSE KEY FIGURES ALWAYS INTO THE COMMITTEE ITSELF.
FOR INSTANCE, IT WAS RAISED BY MEMBERS IN DISCUSSION THAT, FOR INSTANCE, THE ROLE STEVE CROCKER PLAYS WITH THE SECURITY AND STABILITY COMMITTEE IS AN INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT ONE.
WE'D WANT TO HAVE ACCESS TO A STEVE CROCKER IN DISCUSSION.
SO REINFORCEMENT OF THE ROLE OF KEY FIGURES IN THE COMMUNITY IN THE KEY -- IN THE DISCUSSION WAS AN IMPORTANT PART.
SO TO GIVE YOU SOME IDEA OF THE MEMBERSHIP TO DATE, PETER DENGATE THRUSH IS A CO-CHAIR.
THE FORMER SWEDISH PRIME MINISTER, CARL BILDT, HAS AGREED TO BE A CO-CHAIR.
MYSELF, THE CHAIRMAN, IS AN EX OFFICIO MEMBER; ADAMA SAMASSEKOU, WHO WAS THE CHAIR OF THE FIRST PREPARATORY COMMITTEE FOR THE WORLD SUMMIT ON THE INFORMATION SOCIETY; AND JANIS KARKLINS, WHO WAS THE CHAIR OF THE SECOND PREPARATORY COMMITTEE; THOMAS NILES, FROM -- DEPUTY CHAIR OF THE USCIB; MARILYN CADE, KNOWN TO MANY OF US, HER BACKGROUND.
THERE ARE TWO SENIOR BUSINESS FIGURES, VERY SENIOR BUSINESS FIGURES IN THE UNITED STATES WHO HAVE VERBALLY AGREED TO BE A MEMBER.
BUT AS OF TODAY, UNFORTUNATELY, I DON'T HAVE THE WRITTEN CONFIRMATION FROM THEIR OFFICES, SO I CAN'T ACTUALLY GIVE YOU THEIR NAMES, HAVE AGREED TO BE ON THE COMMITTEE TO DATE.
AS I SAID, WE DON'T EXPECT THIS TO BE AN -- THE FINAL MEMBERSHIP OF THE COMMITTEE, BUT WE'RE ALSO WANTING TO BE SOMEWHAT CAREFUL ABOUT THE SCOPE OF IT.
AND WE'RE ALSO -- SO YOU CAN EXPECT TO HEAR ABOUT MORE APPOINTMENTS.
BUT WE ALSO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE COMMITTEE TO START ITS WORK FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS.
IDENTIFIED PRIORITIES TO DATE FROM CONVERSATIONS WITH THE COMMUNITY, WHICH ACTUALLY LED UP TO THIS DISCUSSION IN VANCOUVER, IS THAT THE BOARD AND COMMUNITY COULD VALUE THE ADVICE OF SUCH A GROUP ON ISSUES, FOR INSTANCE, ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT SURROUNDING THE CONCLUSION OF THE MOU WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE.
AND THAT'S AN IMPORTANT STEP.
OBVIOUSLY, THIS IS IMPORTANT THIS YEAR.
BROADLY, INTERNET GOVERNANCE ISSUES.
AND, OF COURSE, THAT'S RELATED TO THE IGF.
AND I THINK VERY IMPORTANTLY COMING FROM THE VERY SENIOR BUSINESS PEOPLE THAT WE'VE BEEN SPEAKING TO, NONGOVERNMENT -- DESCRIBED AS NONGOVERNMENT PRIORITIES FOR THE INTERNET AND HOW THEY MAY IMPACT ON ICANN'S MISSION.
THEY EMPHASIZE, OF COURSE, THE BUSINESS TECHNICAL ASPECTS, WHERE'S THE BUSINESS GOING IN THE INTERNET, AND THE IMPACT OF THAT.
BUT I THINK ALSO -- WHAT DOES IT MEAN ALSO FROM THEIR PERSPECTIVE, WHERE'S THE CUSTOMER GOING, HOW WE WOULD SAY, I SUPPOSE, THE CONSUMER OR THE USER.
AND SO I THINK I'VE TRIED TO SUMMARIZE THAT AS NONGOVERNMENT PRIORITIES THAT HAVE SOME IMPACT, SOME UNDERSTANDING, IF YOU LIKE, FROM MORE BROADLY OUTSIDE HOW THEY MAY INFLUENCE.
THE METHODOLOGIES OF THE COMMITTEE ARE VERY SIMILAR, I THINK, TO THE METHODOLOGIES OF OTHER COMMITTEES WE HAVE, OR ADVISORY COMMITTEES WE HAVE.
VERY OCCASIONAL FACE-TO-FACE MEETINGS.
THESE ARE ACTUALLY VERY, VERY BUSY PEOPLE, SO WE DO NOT EXPECT TO BE MEETING FACE TO FACE VERY OFTEN AT ALL.
ONLINE WORKING.
REPORT COMMISSIONING, IF NECESSARY.
IF IT'S NECESSARY TO HAVE SOME REPORTING ON PARTICULAR TOPICS, THEN THAT WILL BE DONE.
COMMUNITY PUBLIC FORUMS, SIMILARLY, IF NECESSARY, AND I SUPPOSE THE "IF NECESSARY" IS A LITTLE HARSH THERE, BUT THE ABILITY TO HAVE MEETINGS LIKE THIS, A PUBLIC FORUM WHERE PEOPLE WOULD TAKE INPUT, ASK QUESTIONS, BE ABLE TO LISTEN TO INPUT.
AND PUBLIC PROVISION OF ADVICE, WHERE NECESSARY.
AND I SUPPOSE THIS IS SOMEWHAT VERY SIMILAR TO -- I SUPPOSE, TO THE SSAC MODEL OF THE COMMITTEE MAKING A JUDGMENT WHEN IT THINKS IT NEEDS TO PROVIDE SOME ADVICE TO THE COMMUNITY.
I WANTED TO REINFORCE THE PRIORITY OF ESTABLISHED PROCESSES.
THE COMMITTEE DOES NOT REPLACE THE BOTTOM-UP STRATEGIC AND OPERATIONAL PLANNING PROCESS.
ITS OBSERVATIONS OR ADVICE CAN CONTRIBUTE TO THAT PROCESS.
AND ITS OBSERVATIONS OR ADVICE CAN CONTRIBUTE TO COMMUNITY AND BOARD DISCUSSION OF ISSUES.
THIS IS NOT SOME SECRET STAR CHAMBER PROCESS AT ALL.
THIS IS A CHANCE TO TRY TO REINFORCE AND BRING SOME FOCUS ON SOME ISSUES TO BRING INTO THE DISCUSSION IN THE COMMUNITY OF SOME OF THESE TOPICS.
I THINK THAT'S THE TOTAL PRESENTATION.

>>VINT CERF: OKAY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, PAUL.
ALL RIGHT.
NOW, I HAVE SEVERAL THINGS THAT I WANT TO DRAW TO YOUR ATTENTION BEFORE WE OPEN UP FOR SOME QUESTIONS -- BEFORE WE OPEN UP FOR SOME QUESTIONS.
FIRST OF ALL, KEITH DAVIDSON ASKED ME TO MAKE AN ANNOUNCEMENT TO YOU.
AND I HAVE TO FIND HIS MESSAGE.
SO KINDLY.... APOLOGIES.
THERE'S SUCH A THING AS TOO MUCH E-MAIL.
HERE WE GO.
THIS IS FROM KEITH DAVIDSON, WHO IS ONE OF OUR HOSTS.
ALL OF THE DELEGATES ARE REMINDED THAT THEY RECEIVED A FEEDBACK FORM IN THEIR DELEGATES PACK.
AND IT WOULD BE MOST USEFUL TO THE HOSTS IF THE FEEDBACK FORMS COULD BE COMPLETED AND RETURNED TO THE HOSPITALITY DESK IN THE FOYER TODAY AND TOMORROW.
SECOND, THE ICANN BAR WILL OPEN EARLY THIS AFTERNOON, AT 4:00 P.M.
[ APPLAUSE ]

>>VINT CERF: IT OCCURRED TO ME THAT THE BEST WAY TO GET THE FEEDBACK FORMS WOULD BE TO OFFER A FREE BEER IN EXCHANGE FOR TURNING IN YOUR FEEDBACK FORM.
THAT MIGHT LEAD TO BALLOT BOX STUFFING, HOWEVER.
SO MAYBE IT'S NOT SUCH A GOOD IDEA.
INTERNETNZ AND CATALYST WILL BE OFFERING SPECIAL ICANN -- A SPECIAL ICANN COCKTAIL TODAY AT THE BAR, AND ADDITIONAL CATERING AND A DIFFERENT THEME WILL APPLY, AND THE HOSTS URGE DELEGATES TO ENJOY A FINAL EVENING OF KIWI HOSPITALITY.
SO THAT'S FOR TODAY.
AND THAT'S KEITH'S ANNOUNCEMENT.
SECOND, I HAVE RECEIVED SO FAR 32 ONLINE LETTERS WHICH I HAVE HERE PRINTED OUT.
I ASSUME THAT YOU WOULD APPRECIATE IF I DID NOT TRY TO READ THESE ORALLY INTO THE RECORD.
THEY WILL BE POSTED.
BUT, BASICALLY, THEY ARE A LETTER FROM EDWARD HASBROUCK, WHICH REPEATS MOST OF HIS CONCERNS ABOUT DOT TRAVEL AND THE INDEPENDENT REVIEW PROCESS.
AND THE OTHER 31 OR SO LETTERS ARE LETTERS OF SUPPORT URGING THAT THE INDEPENDENT REVIEW PROCESS BE UNDERTAKEN.
MR. HASBROUCK CONTINUES TO BE CONFUSED, I THINK, OR AT LEAST APPEARS NOT TO BELIEVE THAT THE ICANN BOARD HAS, INDEED, DESIGNATED THE INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION AS ITS INDEPENDENT REVIEW PROCESS OPERATOR.
ON 19 APRIL 2004, UNDER BOARD RESOLUTION 4.33, THE BOARD DID IN FACT NAME ICRD ITS IRP OPERATOR.
SO IF MR. HASBROUCK IS CONCERNED THAT WE HAVEN'T OFFICIALLY DONE THAT, THAT'S THE CITATION THAT SHOULD PUT THAT UNCERTAINTY TO REST.
FINALLY, WHAT I'D LIKE TO STRONGLY RECOMMEND IN RESPONSE TO MR. HASBROUCK'S E-MAIL IS THAT HE DEAL DIRECTLY WITH THE INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION.
THE METHOD FOR INITIATING AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW IS, IN FACT, TO DEAL WITH -- DIRECTLY WITH THE OPERATOR OF THE INDEPENDENT REVIEW PROCESS.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT GENERAL COUNSEL HAS SUPPLIED TO MR. HASBROUCK POINTERS TO THE ICRD.
BUT IF FOR SOME REASON THOSE AREN'T AVAILABLE TO HIM OR THEY'VE BEEN LOST, I'M SURE THAT GENERAL COUNSEL CAN SUPPLY THAT AGAIN.
FINALLY, JUST AS A SIDE NOTE, IN ORDER TO IMPROVE THE ABILITY TO -- OF USERS TO INITIATE AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW, THE STAFF IS WORKING WITH ICRD TO DEVELOP A WEB FORM WHICH CAN BE USED TO PRESENT A REQUEST FOR AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW.
THAT WEB FORM IS INTENDED TO HELP THE PARTY REQUESTING THE REQUEST -- REQUESTING THE REVIEW TO FILL IN ALL OF THE INFORMATION THAT THE ICRD REQUIRES IN ORDER TO CONDUCT SUCH AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW.
SO THAT'S JUST TO LET YOU KNOW THAT THE MATERIAL THAT HAS BEEN RECEIVED OVERNIGHT, AND PERHAPS ONE THIS MORNING, WILL BE POSTED IF IT HAS NOT ALREADY BEEN POSTED, AND THAT IT IS ACKNOWLEDGED HERE IN THE RECORD.
BUT FOR LACK OF TIME, I'M NOT GOING TO READ EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE ORALLY.
ALL RIGHT.
I THINK THAT THAT COVERS ALL OF THE INTERVENTIONS THAT I WANTED TO MAKE BEFORE I OPENED UP FOR SPECIFIC QUESTIONS REGARDING THE REPORTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE SO FAR, THE GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE, CONFLICT OF INTEREST, FINANCE MEETINGS, RECONSIDERATION, AND AUDIT, AND THE PRESIDENT'S REPORT ON STRATEGIC PLANNING.
SO IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS FROM THE FLOOR, I'LL TAKE THEM NOW.
OR FROM THE BOARD, FOR THAT MATTER.
VITTORIO.

>>VITTORIO BERTOLA: IT IS ON.
YEAH, OKAY.
OKAY, I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THE QUESTION I WANT TO MAKE, BUT I GUESS I DID NOT UNDERSTAND ANYTHING ABOUT THIS PRESIDENT'S STRATEGIC COMMITTEE.
SO WHAT'S THAT?
WHAT IS IT SUPPOSED TO DO?
I MEAN, WHAT IS IT?
WHERE DOES IT COME FROM?
DID IT COME FROM THE BOARD, WHAT IS IT INTENDED TO BE?
AND WHERE DOES IT FIT IN ICANN'S PROCESSES?
I MEAN, THERE'S NO MENTION OF IT IN THE BYLAWS OR ANYWHERE ELSE.
SO WHY IS IT A GOOD IDEA TO CREATE IT?
AND ESPECIALLY I WAS -- WELL, I'M QUITE HAPPY, BY THE WAY, THAT YOU ARE INVOLVING (INAUDIBLE) WHO IS REALLY AN EXCEPTIONAL PERSON, SO I'M QUITE HAPPY IF HE STARTS COMING TO THESE MEETINGS.
BUT APART FROM HIM AND JANIS, I WOULD SAY, ALL OF THE REST OF THEM ARE WHITE MALE ANGLO-SAXON PEOPLE, AND SO I --

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: MARILYN CADE WILL BE DELIGHTED TO HEAR HERSELF DESCRIBED --

>>VITTORIO BERTOLA: WE CAN DISCUSS MARILYN'S GENDER, BUT --
[ LAUGHTER ]

>>VITTORIO BERTOLA: SORRY.
BUT -- YEAH.
NO.
BUT I GUESS THE MESSAGE IS CLEAR.
I MEAN, WHY DO WE NEED THIS?
I MEAN, WHAT IS THIS FOR?
WHY DOESN'T IT INVOLVE PEOPLE FROM ALL THE STAKEHOLDERS, ALL THE GROUPS, ALL COUNTRIES?
ESPECIALLY I AM AFRAID OF THIS SORT OF LACK OF DEFINITION OF ITS ROLE IN THE PROCESS, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, GROUPS THAT DON'T HAVE A ROLE CAN BASICALLY DO EVERYTHING AND YOU WILL NEVER KNOW WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO DO.

>>VINT CERF: VITTORIO, I'D LIKE TO RESPOND.
I SUSPECT THAT PAUL MIGHT HAVE A COMMENT AS WELL.
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE STRATEGIC PROCESS -- STRATEGY PROCESS WANTS TO BE AS BROADLY CONSULTATIVE AS POSSIBLE.
I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND WHY YOU WOULD OBJECT TO ADDITIONAL CONSULTATION FROM THESE PARTIES.
PAUL SURELY IS ABLE TO CONSULT WITH ALMOST ANYONE THAT HE THINKS IS HELPFUL IN THE FORMULATION OF STRATEGIC PLANS.
AND, OF COURSE, WE HAVE A WHOLE PROCESS FOR SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION INPUT.
SO ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOU OBJECT BECAUSE YOU THINK IT'S NOT NECESSARY FOR HIM TO CONSULT FURTHER OR THAT HE SHOULDN'T HAVE THE FREEDOM TO ASK OTHER PEOPLE TO MAKE INPUTS INTO THE STRATEGIC PLANNING?
I'M JUST PUZZLED -- AS PUZZLED AS YOU WERE ABOUT PAUL'S REPORT, I AM EQUALLY PUZZLED BY WHATEVER RATIONALE LED YOU TO MAKE YOUR POINT.

>>VITTORIO BERTOLA: LET ME PUT IT THIS WAY: IF YOU DON'T ESTABLISH THIS KIND OF COMMITTEE, THEN YOU IMAGINE THAT YOU CAN ASK EVERYONE IN THE COMMUNITY.
BUT IF YOU DO, OF COURSE, YOU IMAGINE THAT THESE WILL BE THE PEOPLE LEADING THIS SORT OF PROCESS.
SO NOW -- THEN YOU CAN SAY, OF COURSE WE WILL CONSULT EVERYONE ELSE AND THAT.
BUT ONCE YOU ESTABLISH A FORMALLY EXISTING COMMITTEE FOR THAT, I MEAN, EVERYONE STARTS TO THINK THAT THIS WILL BE LEADING THE EFFORT.
AND IF YOU ESTABLISH THIS COMMITTEE, I AM ASKING, WHY CAN'T IT BE DIVERSE, AS ALL THE REST OF THE ICANN GROUPS AND COMMITTEES AND....

>>VINT CERF: WELL, I THINK PAUL PROBABLY WANTS TO RESPOND.
AND THEN MICHAEL.
WERE THERE OTHER HANDS UP?
PETER AS WELL.
OKAY.
SO LET'S TAKE PAUL, MICHAEL, AND PETER.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: PERHAPS TO HELP US A LITTLE BIT, THIS HAS BEEN QUITE SOME TIME COMING AND IT'S BEEN DISCUSSED ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS.
IT REALLY IS LARGELY AN OUTGROWTH OF THE FOCUS ON STRATEGIC PLANNING THAT STARTED 18 MONTHS OR TWO YEARS AGO.
AND THE LACK OF AN ACTUAL STRUCTURE IN THE ORGANIZATION FOR THE STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS.
SO I STARTED CALLING FOR A STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD TO START, FIRST OF ALL, FOCUSING ON INSTALLING STRATEGIC PLANNING CONCEPTS AND ALL OF THE INTERNAL PARTS OF THE ORGANIZATION, TO LEAD INTO AN ORGANIZATIONAL OPERATIONAL PLAN, A BUSINESS PLAN, ET CETERA.
WE'VE SORT OF BEEN GOING THROUGH THAT AT THE SAME TIME AND BUILDING THE OPERATIONAL PLAN, ET CETERA.
SO THAT -- WE ARE SORT OF SATISFIED THAT WE NOW HAVE A PROCESS THAT IS LEADING TO THAT.
BUT THE OTHER ASPECT OF THAT, WHAT THIS COMMITTEE IS GOING TO FOCUS ON FIRST, IS THE EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENTAL, OFTEN CALLED THE THREAT ANALYSIS, THAT YOU NEED TO DO FOR THE ORGANIZATIONAL SECURITY.
AND I DON'T NEED TO TELL YOU THAT WE FACE A CONTINUATION OF THE WSIS ENVIRONMENT, THE IGF, THE END OF THE MOU, OR WHATEVER IS GOING TO HAPPEN TO THE MOU, THE IANA REBID.
SO WE NEED TO HAVE THIS FOCUS ON WHERE DOES ICANN SIT IN THE WORLD.
AND SO THAT'S REALLY WHAT THIS IS LARGELY DESIGNED TO DEAL WITH.

>>VINT CERF: WE HAVE COMPETING --

>>MICHAEL PALAGE: THANKS, VINT.
PERHAPS, BEING ON THE ALAC BOWLING TEAM LAST NIGHT, I CAN POSSIBLY RELATE BETTER TO THESE CONCERNS.
I THINK IT'S -- IF YOU WILL, IT'S A CONCERN ABOUT THIS COMMITTEE ACTING AS A SUBSTITUTE.
I THINK RIGHT NOW THERE'S A LOT OF SENSITIVITY IN THE COMMUNITY REGARDING THE VERISIGN SETTLEMENT, THAT CERTAIN THINGS WERE NOT HEARD.
AND IF THIS COMMITTEE IS GOING TO BE A SUBSTITUTE AS OPPOSED TO ENHANCING IT, THAT, I THINK, IS -- THAT'S THE CONCERN.
NOW, I AGREE WITH WHAT PETER SAID.
I THINK THAT THIS IS A GOOD THING.
AND TO USE THE PHRASE, "TRUST US," AT THIS PARTICULAR TIME IS PROBABLY SOMETHING THAT IS A LITTLE DIFFICULT.
YES.
PETER, WHO, IF YOU WILL, HAS CHAMPIONED THIS PARTICULAR INITIATIVE, I THINK IS HAS A GOOD IDEA.
AND ONE OF THE REASONS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT THIS IS WE WERE ORIGINALLY LOOKING AT A BOARD COMMITTEE.
THE PROBLEM WITH BOARD COMMITTEES IS, ONLY PEOPLE ON THE BOARD CAN SERVE WITH IT.
SO THE WHOLE IDEA OF THIS PRESIDENT'S COMMITTEE WAS TO PROVIDE SOMETHING OF, IF YOU WILL, A LITTLE MORE INTERACTION.
I WILL TELL YOU, IT -- I DON'T VIEW THIS AS A SUBSTITUTE.
I VIEW THIS AS AN ADDITIONAL, IF YOU WILL, DATA POINT.
SO, AGAIN, I UNDERSTAND THAT WE'RE ASKING YOU TO TRUST US AND THAT RIGHT NOW THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE THAT DON'T GIVE US A LOT OF, IF YOU WILL, CREDENCE IN THAT BANK DEPARTMENT.
BUT, AGAIN, I THINK WHAT PETER IS SAYING IS THE TRUTH, AND THAT THIS IS PROBABLY A GOOD THING.

>>VITTORIO BERTOLA: BUT EVEN IF IT IS A GOOD THING, THE MEMBERSHIP IS ANOTHER ISSUE.
SO....

>>PAUL TWOMEY: PERHAPS, VINT, I CAN TALK TO THAT -- TALK SPECIFICALLY TO THE MEMBERSHIP.
THERE'S TWO PARTS -- I WANT TO REINFORCE ALL THOSE THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN SAID TO DATE.
AND I WANT TO REINFORCE THE NON- -- IT HAS BEEN SEEN BY THE BOARD AS BOTH A -- ONE PART OF IT IS, AT LEAST THOSE MEMBERS WHO ARE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, AS A SUBGROUP OF THE BOARD WHO ARE PUSHING ON THE FORCES AROUND STRATEGIC PLANNING.
BUT THE SECOND PART IS TO BE SURE WE HAVE SUPPLEMENTARY INPUTS IN THAT PROCESS FROM PEOPLE WHO DO NOT ALWAYS ATTEND THE MEETINGS BUT WHO HAVE INTERESTING PERSPECTIVES WE SHOULD BE HEARING AND WHO THEMSELVES HAVE INTERESTING PERSPECTIVES.
IT'S AN ADDITIONAL SOURCE.
MANY OF THESE PEOPLE I HAVE SPOKEN TO DON'T HAVE REGULAR INTERACTION WITH THIS ORGANIZATION, AND I HAVE TO TELL YOU, ARE NOT LIKELY TO COME TO THESE MEETINGS.
THEY HAVE BEEN VERY CLEAR ABOUT THAT.
WE CERTAINLY HAVE ALREADY BEEN IN THE PROCESS OF TRYING TO GET THE RIGHT BALANCE AND IDENTIFICATION OF PEOPLE WHO SHOULD ADDITIONALLY BE ON THAT.
AND WE'RE CERTAINLY INTERESTED TO HEAR THE PERSPECTIVES.
SO IF YOU'VE GOT -- I'M VERY CONSCIOUS OF THE VERY POINT YOU RAISE.
THESE MEMBERS ARE MOSTLY EUROPEAN.
IT'S EUROPEAN, NORTH AMERICAN, AND AFRICAN.
THERE WAS ACTUALLY A KEY SOUTH ASIAN FIGURE WHO SAID NO.
SO THERE HAS BEEN FURTHER -- THERE'S BEEN DISCUSSION ABOUT SOME EAST-ASIAN FIGURES.
I TRIED TO MAKE A POINT ABOUT NONGOVERNMENT BECAUSE I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT CIVIL SOCIETY TYPE OF THINGS.
BUT AT THE SAME TIME, THERE'S ALSO BEEN A CONCERN THAT WE DON'T JUST TRY TO REPLICATE THE STRUCTURE OF ICANN INTO THE STRUCTURE OF A COMMITTEE.
BECAUSE IT COULD ACTUALLY HAVE THE VERY IMPACT THAT YOU'RE WORRIED ABOUT, IT STARTS TO LOOK LIKE IT'S A REPLACEMENT OR SOME SORT OF ELITIST GROUP OF THE SAME STRUCTURE.
SO WE'VE BEEN CONCERNED IN THE STRUCTURE TO TRY TO NOT BE SEEN TO BE REPLACING ANYTHING OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURES IN ICANN BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO DIMINISH THOSE, IF THAT CAN MAKE SOME SENSE.
AND I THINK WE SHOULD NOT -- IN NO WAY SHOULD THIS COMMITTEE BE ALLOWED TO BE ANYTHING ELSE BUT AN INPUT TO THE MULTISTAKEHOLDER ORGANIZATIONS IN ICANN TO CONSIDER THE, YOU KNOW, THEIR STRATEGIC THINKING.

>>VINT CERF: OKAY.
RAIMUNDO ALSO --

>>PAUL TWOMEY: I WOULD BE VERY INTERESTED IF YOU HAVE PARTICULAR NAMES OR THOUGHTS, WE SHOULD CERTAINLY KEEP TALKING.

>>VINT CERF: WELL, I ASSUME THAT THIS COMMITTEE CAN BE EXPANDED.
THERE'S NOTHING RESTRICTING YOU FROM DOING THAT.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: I THINK THAT'S RIGHT.
I THINK WE DO NEED TO BE A LITTLE CAREFUL ABOUT -- WE CAN.
THAT'S BEEN -- AND THAT'S BEEN THE CASE FOR OTHER KEY COMMITTEES WE HAVE FOR THE BOARD.

>>VINT CERF: RAIMUNDO HAD A COMMENT.
AND THEN MOUHAMET.

>>RAIMUNDO BECA: WELL, I DO SHARE SOME OF VITTORIO'S CONCERNS ABOUT THE COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE, AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT, PERSONALLY, I VOLUNTEERED TO BE A MEMBER OF THIS COMMITTEE.
I DO HAVE A LARGE EXPERIENCE IN STRATEGIC PLANNING.
I WAS THE STRATEGIC PLANNING OFFICER OF A LARGE TELEPHONE COMPANY IN CHILE AND IN SPAIN.
AND I DO REPRESENT A REGION WHICH IS NOT IN THE COMMITTEE.
AND I DO SPEAK ABSOLUTELY FLUENT IN TWO LANGUAGES WHICH ARE NOT REPRESENTED THERE, FRENCH AND SPANISH.
AND OF ALL THE MEMBERS OF THIS BOARD, I AM THE ONLY ONE THAT HAS ATTENDED ALL OF THE DISCUSSIONS OF THE STRATEGIC PLANNING IN ENGLISH, IN FRENCH, AND IN SPANISH.

>>VINT CERF: OKAY.
THANK YOU, RAIMUNDO.
OF COURSE, AS A BOARD MEMBER, YOU SHOULD HAVE SUBSTANTIAL OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON ANY STRATEGIC PLANNING THAT IS DONE IN ANY CASE.
MOUHAMET.

>>MOUHAMET DIOP: THANK YOU, VINT.
I THINK THAT THE -- THE CONFUSION COMES A LITTLE BIT FROM THE FACT THAT THE STRAT PLAN IS A PROCESS THAT WE HAVE DESCRIBED FOR THE INTERNAL PROCESS AND THE EXTERNAL PROCESS.
AND I THINK THAT THE CEO OF ICANN HAS SOME ROOM TO DECIDE IF HE NEEDS -- I MEAN, IN ORDER TO EXERCISE BETTER THE OBJECTIVE AND THE GOALS THAT THE ORGANIZATION HAS STATED FOR HIM, TO CREATE AS MANY PRESIDENTIAL COMMITTEES AS HE WANTS.
SO I THINK THAT WE NEED TO DEFINE THAT THE OBJECTIVE OF THIS COMMITTEE IS MORE DEDICATED TO A POSITIONING OF ICANN AS AN INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION THAT REALLY -- THE ASPECT OF THE STRAT PLAN THAT IS INTERNAL EFFORTS.
BECAUSE TO COME BACK TO THE DISCUSSION WE HAD YESTERDAY ABOUT THE BOARD GOVERNANCE AND ALL THIS STUFF, I THINK THAT WE'RE LACKING TO GET -- WHENEVER WE HEARD AND WE SEE THAT THERE WAS SOME CRISIS, THAT TO HAVE SOME OTHER COMMITTEE, LIKE IT MIGHT BE A PRESIDENTIAL COMMITTEE.
WE SEE THAT WHAT WE HEARD FROM THE COMMUNITY AND WHEN WE LOOK AT THAT, IT'S JUST LIKE A WHOLE -- MANY CONSTITUENCIES LOOK A LITTLE BIT UNHAPPY WITH WHAT YOU ARE FEELING.
I THINK THERE IS A PROCESS THAT CAN BE SET UP BY THE PRESIDENT, THE CEO OF ICANN, TO SEE, OKAY, THIS IS AN INTERNAL PROCESS.
WE WANT TO KNOW, IN THAT ENVIRONMENT, WHAT CAN WE DO IN ORDER TO -- I MEAN, TO HAVE AN INTERNAL STRATEGIC PROCESS TO BETTER THE ORGANIZATION.
AND THIS IS NOT THE SAME THING THAT WHEN WE -- WHEN WE TARGET AN OBJECTIVE OF, WE WANT ICANN TO BECOME INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION, AND WE SEE PEOPLE WHO HAVE A VERY STRONG EXPERIENCE IN INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION.
AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE COMPOSITION OF THIS GROUP, IT'S MUCH MORE PEOPLE THAT HAVE A STRONG KNOWLEDGE AND A STRONG PARTICIPATION AT THE INTERNATIONAL LEVEL.
SO I THINK THAT WE NEED TO BE CLEAR REGARDING EACH COMMITTEE WE'RE SETTING UP WHAT IS THE OBJECTIVE WE WANT TO ACHIEVE THROUGH THAT COMMITTEE.
AND IT WILL BE EASIER FOR US TO ACCEPT THE MANDATE THAT WE GIVE THAT GROUP.
AND AT THE SAME TIME, COME BACK AND LOOK AT, INTERNALLY, IF THERE'S ANY SAME STRAT PLAN, OF COURSE, THAT WE CAN HAVE AND GET ALL THE CONSTITUENCIES BEING INVOLVED TO SEE HOW WE CAN BETTER THESE THINGS.
THANKS.

>>VINT CERF: OKAY.
I SEE WE HAVE QUITE A FEW PEOPLE LINED UP.
CAN I GET A GENERAL SENSE FOR HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE LINING UP TO SPEAK?

>>ELLIOT NOSS: IT LOOKS LIKE THREE, VINT.

>>VINT CERF: IS IT THREE?
OKAY.
I'M COUNTING MORE THAN THREE, BUT YOU'RE SAYING SOME OF THEM ARE NOT IN LINE?

>>ELLIOT NOSS: I ONLY SEE THREE.

>>VINT CERF: ELLIOT, GO AHEAD.

>>ELLIOT NOSS: TWO COMMENTS.
ONE FIRST ON THE PRESIDENT'S REPORT AND THE COMMITTEE.
AND THE SECOND ON RECONSIDERATION.
I WILL SAY THAT AS I WAS SITTING AND WATCHING THAT COMMITTEE AND ITS INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS, I WAS REALLY STRUCK AND SCARED, FRANKLY, IN RELATION TO SOME OF MY COMMENTS YESTERDAY THAT THIS LOOKED LIKE, TO ME, MORE OF A GOVERNMENT RELATIONS COMMITTEE.
AND I WILL SAY I WAS VERY HEARTENED BY PETER'S COMMENTS TO FIRST GROUND IT, AND THEN MOUHAMET'S, WHICH I THOUGHT DID A GREAT JOB OF PUTTING, POTENTIALLY, THE ROLE OF THIS COMMITTEE IN PERSPECTIVE.
I WOULD REALLY URGE THAT -- THAT THAT CLEAR SETTING OF OBJECTIVES BE DONE. AND TWO OTHER NOTES THERE, AND I THINK THAT THAT IS A GOOD EXERCISE, BUT I WOULD REALLY -- AND MOUHAMET, I BELIEVE YOU SAID, AND I REALLY WANT TO BE IN DEFERENCE TO THIS, I BELIEVE YOU SAID IN THE REGISTRARS' MEETING LAST WEEK THAT ENGLISH WAS YOUR FOURTH OR FIFTH LANGUAGE.
FOR ME IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE USE THE WORD GLOBAL, NOT INTERNATIONAL, WHEN TALKING ABOUT ICANN'S ROLE. I THINK IF WE USE THE WORD "INTERNATIONAL," WE CHANGE THE WHOLE SCOPE OF THE DISCUSSION AND DEBATE INTO SOMETHING VERY DIFFERENT.
BUT I'D REALLY URGE YOU TO FOCUS -- EITHER FOCUS THE OBJECTIVES AND THE ROLE OF THIS COMMITTEE OR TO REALLY LOOK AT BROADENING ITS PARTICIPATION IN SOME OTHER WAY.
BUT WITH THAT FOCUS, I THINK THAT'S COMPLETELY APPROPRIATE.
SORRY, BY ALL MEANS BECAUSE I WANT TO MOVE TO A COMPLETELY SEPARATE TOPIC. SO IF THERE ARE ANY COMMENTS ON THAT....

>>VINT CERF: NO. GO RIGHT AHEAD.

>>ELLIOT NOSS: WHEN I WAS COMING TO WELLINGTON, I PROMISED MYSELF THAT I WASN'T GOING TO SPEAK ABOUT THE VERISIGN SETTLEMENT, AND I REALLY LIKE TO, IN AN ICANN CONTEXT, I THINK ONE OF THE GREAT DISCIPLINES THAT I HAVE TO IMPOSE ON MYSELF IS TO NOT LOOK AT THE PAST BUT TO LOOK AT THE FUTURE.
THAT RECONSIDERATION REPORT REALLY, THOUGH, CALLED OUT AN ITEM THAT I FEEL THAT I HAVE TO PUT ON THE TABLE HERE.
SPECIFICALLY, THERE WAS MUCH REFERENCE GIVEN TO THE FACT THAT THE RECONSIDERATION REQUEST DID NOT CONTAIN A NUMBER OF SPECIFIC HEADS OF ECONOMIC DATA.
AS SOMEBODY WHO WAS VERY INVOLVED IN THE REGISTRARS' DISCUSSION AROUND THAT, I FOUND THAT INCREDIBLY FRUSTRATING. AND I WANT TO BE VERY SPECIFIC HERE.
FIRST, I WANT TO THANK THE FOLK WHO DID ALL THE HARD WORK ON THAT RECONSIDERATION REQUEST, OF WHICH I WASN'T ONE, ALTHOUGH I SUPPORTED IT AND ALL OF THAT. I WANT TO THANK THEM FOR THAT HARD WORK. I WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR ABOUT SOMETHING, THOUGH.
WHEN IT CAME TO THAT ECONOMIC DATA, THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION PUT IN BY US AS TO WHETHER WE WANTED TO RETAIN AN ECONOMIST AT GREAT EXPENSE, AND TO HAVE ALL OF THOSE ISSUES SPOKEN TO. AND EVERYONE WHO PARTICIPATED IN THOSE DISCUSSIONS WAS QUITE COMFORTABLE TO WRITE THE CHECK.
AT THAT POINT, THOUGH, I WAS SOMEBODY WHO OPPOSED THAT, AND I OPPOSED IT FOR A VERY SPECIFIC REASON.
IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE TO RETAIN AN ECONOMIST TO DO THAT WITHOUT HAVING THE ASSUMPTIONS AND THE WORK DONE TO JUSTIFY THE PRICE INCREASE IN THE FIRST PLACE.
WE DON'T KNOW VERISIGN'S BUSINESS. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT ASSUMPTIONS WERE TABLED, EITHER BY STAFF OR BY VERISIGN, IN SUPPORT OF THIS.
WE WERE NOT PRIVY, AND STILL ARE NOT, TO THE DISCUSSIONS WITH DOJ OR DOC IN THAT REGARD.
SPECIFICALLY, I ASKED STAFF ON A PUBLIC PHONE CALL IF WE COULD HAVE ACCESS TO WHAT MATERIALS WERE PREPARED, AND THAT WE NEEDED THAT IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE EXACTLY THE TYPE OF RESPONSE THAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.
NOT ONLY WOULD THOSE MATERIALS NOT BE PROVIDED. STAFF WOULD NOT EVEN ACKNOWLEDGE WHETHER MATERIALS WERE EVER PREPARED. YOU KNOW, IT WAS AS IF I WAS TALKING ABOUT SOME GREAT STATE SECRET.
SO THERE'S ONE OF TWO THINGS THERE. EITHER THERE WERE MATERIALS AND THEY WEREN'T MADE AVAILABLE TO US, IN WHICH CASE WE COULDN'T POSSIBLY RESPOND TO THOSE ISSUES APPROPRIATELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF A RECONSIDERATION REQUEST, OR THERE WEREN'T MATERIALS. AND IF NOT, WHY NOT?
AND AT THAT POINT -- IT'S THAT REVERSING OF THE PRESUMPTION THAT IS SO INCREDIBLY FRUSTRATING THERE.
FOR ME, WE HAVE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT BOARD AND STAFF TRANSPARENCY AS IT RELATES IN GENERAL TO ICANN'S CONDUCT.
THIS IS JUST A PERFECT EXAMPLE, TO ME, OF THE TYPE OF ITEM THAT, AS A MEMBER OF THE COMMUNITY, IT MAKES IT SO DIFFICULT AND SO CHALLENGING TO NOT FEEL ANYTHING BUT INCREDIBLY FRUSTRATED.
THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, ELLIOT. AS ALWAYS, YOUR ELOQUENCE IS IMPRESSIVE. I'M SORRY YOU ARE SO FRUSTRATED.
IT LOOKS LIKE YOU AND I BOTH DIDN'T COUNT VERY WELL, THOUGH, BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S MORE THAN THREE PEOPLE.

>>ELLIOT NOSS: HE CAME AFTER I COUNTED.

>>VINT CERF: HE DOESN'T COUNT, YOU SAY?
[ LAUGHTER ]

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: VINT, PETER HERE, CAN I RESPOND TO THIS?

>>VINT CERF: YES GO AHEAD.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: I AM CONCERNED THAT THIS SUGGEST SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE THROUGH THE RECONSIDERATION COMMITTEE. THAT IS SHUTTING THE DOOR AFTER THE HORSE IS LONG GONE. REALLY THAT SORT OF INFORMATION WOULD HAVE BEEN HELPFUL IN THE VANCOUVER MEETING OR SOMETHING EARLIER IN THE PROCESS. ONCE IT'S LATE --

>>ELLIOT NOSS: TO BE CLEAR, PETER, THIS WAS DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD WHEN IT WOULD HAVE BEEN COMPLETELY APPROPRIATE TO PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION.
SO IT WAS DURING THAT PERIOD AND DURING THOSE DISCUSSIONS THAT WE WERE NOT GIVEN ACCESS TO THAT. AND I SAID AT THAT POINT, LOOK, I'M NOT GOING TO SPEND MONEY ON AN ECONOMIST'S REPORT WHERE WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE A BUNCH OF ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT THINGS THAT WE HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT OR THINGS THAT WE CAN'T POSSIBLY UNDERSTAND THE BASIS FOR.
WE COULDN'T UNDERSTAND. WE WEREN'T MADE -- WE WEREN'T PUT IN A POSITION TO BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND THE ANALYSIS THAT WENT INTO JUSTIFYING THE PRICE INCREASE.
SO IT WAS WELL WITHIN TIME AND THERE'S NO OTHER PLACE FOR US TO MAKE THE REQUEST. I MEAN, I'M NOT GOING TO CALL YOU AT HOME AND ASK YOU FOR THAT INFORMATION, PETER. WE DEALT WITH STAFF ON THAT, VERY SPECIFICALLY ON A PUBLIC CALL. PAUL WASN'T ON THE CALL BUT JOHN JEFFREY AND KURT PRITZ WERE. I REQUESTED IT AND REQUESTED IT REPEATEDLY.
AND I STATED THE PURPOSE OF THE REQUEST. AND AGAIN, TO BE CLEAR, I WAS NOT ONLY -- NOT ONLY WAS THE INFORMATION NOT PROVIDED. THEY WOULDN'T EVEN ACKNOWLEDGE WHETHER INFORMATION HAD BEEN GATHERED.
IT WAS AS -- YOU KNOW, IT WAS ONE OF THOSE OBTUSE, OPAQUE ORWELLIAN SORT OF EXCHANGES THAT CAN'T LEAVE ANYBODY ON THE OTHER SIDE OF IT FEELING ANYTHING OTHER THAN EXTREMELY FRUSTRATED AND HELPLESS.
[ APPLAUSE ]

>>VINT CERF: SO NOW I'M -- NO, NO, ELLIOT, I WASN'T TRYING TO GET YOU BACK. UNLESS YOU ARE QUEUING UP AGAIN.
HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE NOW QUEUED UP? BECAUSE EVERY TIME I ASK, YOU ARE SELF-REPRODUCING OUT THERE AS FAR AS I CAN TELL.

>> WE RAISED OUR HAND BEFORE.

>>ROB HALL: LAST TIME YOU ASKED, VINT, PEOPLE SEATED RAISED THEIR HANDS.

>>VINT CERF: HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE QUEUED UP? ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR. IS THAT IT? FIVE, SIX?

>>ROB HALL: THERE'S AT LEAST FOUR, FIVE IN THE AUDIENCE.

>>VINT CERF: I CAN'T TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PEOPLE HOLDING UP THEIR HANDS AND THE PEOPLE HOLDING UP THEIR HANDS TO COUNT THE OTHER PEOPLE HOLDING UP THEIR HANDS.

>> MAYBE WE SHOULD ALL TO THE MIKE.

>> MANY.

>>VINT CERF: THAT'S NOT GOOD EITHER.
WE HAVE A SCHEDULE THAT I AM TRYING, ANYWAY, TO HELP GET THROUGH BECAUSE THERE ARE OTHER REPORTS TO GET DONE. SO I AM TRYING TO GET A SENSE FOR HOW MUCH TIME THIS IS LIKELY TO TAKE.
I AM COUNTING FIVE PEOPLE RIGHT NOW. IS THAT A CORRECT COUNT?

>> I THINK IT'S MORE LIKE TEN.

>>VINT CERF: I WOULD LIKE TO CUT OFF THIS LIST OF QUESTIONS AT SOME POINT SO WE CAN MOVE ON TO OTHER THINGS.

>> THIS IS WHAT WE COME HERE FOR.

>>VINT CERF: SO I WILL TAKE THE PEOPLE WHO ARE STANDING IN THE AISLE NOW. THOSE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO ASK QUESTIONS. AFTER THAT, WE'RE GOING TO GO ON.
LET'S GO AHEAD, PLEASE.

>>WERNER STAUB: MY NAME IS WERNER STAUB. I SPEAK FOR THOSE, INCLUDING CORE, WHO BRING IN NEW TLDS AND OF COURSE EXISTING TLDS.
I WANT TO ASSURE THAT I ALSO WANT TO GO FORWARD AND I AM HAPPY TO SEE THAT THE ICANN WANTS TO LOOK FORWARD AND NOT TO THE PAST.
AND THIS IS THE OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT UNINTENDED SIDE EFFECTS OF, YOU KNOW, OUR DISCUSSIONS OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS OF THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF HOW THE DOMAIN NAME MANAGEMENT OR REGISTRATION CONCEPTS HAVE EVOLVED.
AND ONE OF THOSE SIDE EFFECTS AND ACTUALLY VERY CLOSELY LINKED TO THE DISCUSSION WE HAD YESTERDAY ABOUT THE ICANN BUDGET. I'M NOT SAYING THAT THE ICANN BUDGET IS NOT WELL SPENT. I ACTUALLY THINK IT'S PROBABLY OKAY. BUT WE HAVE AN UNINTENDED SIDE EFFECT THAT IS VERY, VERY POTENT, AND PROBABLY ONE THAT STIFLES INNOVATION.
WE HAVE COME TO A SITUATION WHERE THERE IS, SO TO SPEAK, A TAX PER DOMAIN NAME. AND THIS IS SLOWLY BECOMING A GENERALLY ACCEPTED, THOUGH ERRONEOUS, CONCEPTION THAT THERE SHOULD BE SOMETHING LIKE A TAX APIECE FOR EACH DOMAIN NAME REGISTERED, NOT EVEN DELEGATED.
I FOLLOWED DISCUSSIONS FOR THE NEW CONTRACTS AND THIS WAS NOT ACTUALLY THE BOARD. IT WAS ICANN STAFF AND LAWYERS, BUT THEY SEEM TO GENERALLY ACCEPT THE IDEA THAT THERE SHOULD BE SOMETHING LIKE A CHARGE PER ENTRY IN THE DATABASE.
NOW, I JUST LIKE YOU TO IMAGINE FOR A SECOND THAT IN A NEW TLD, A GROUP OF IDEALISTS GET TOGETHER AND GET SOME FUNDING TO DO A PROPOSAL AND THEY WILL ACTUALLY GIVE AWAY DOMAIN NAMES FOR VERY GOOD REASON. BE IT BLOGGING OR CHATTING OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
AND THEY ESTIMATE THAT THEY WOULD BE GIVING AWAY MAYBE 30 MILLION DOMAIN NAMES THAT WOULD MOST LIKELY BE USED PRODUCTIVELY.
SHOULD THEY PAY 25 CENTS APIECE VIA THE REGISTRARS, YOU CAN IMAGINE HOW MUCH THAT MAKES IF YOU TALK ABOUT JUST 10 MILLION DOMAINS. SHOULD THAT BE 2.5 MILLION DOMAINS TAX FOR ICANN? OR WORSE, SHOULD, IN THE EVENT OF SUCCESS, THE ENTIRE PRINCIPLE, THE ENTIRE CONCEPT BE, SO TO SPEAK, LIMITED BY A PURELY ARTIFICIAL THINKING THAT IT SHOULD BE PER DOMAIN.
THERE IS NO PROBLEM ABOUT ANY DOMAIN NAME REGISTRY, ANY REGISTRANT PAYING ITS FAIR SHARE, BUT YOU CANNOT TREAT ALL THE DOMAIN NAMES IN THE SAME FASHION.
AND I THINK ONE OF THE SIDE EFFECTS WE HAVE, WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT .COM, WE FORGOT THAT THINGS COULD BE DONE DIFFERENTLY.

>>VINT CERF: SO THANK YOU FOR THAT OBSERVATION.
I GUESS THEIR PROBLEM ALWAYS IS FINDING SOME FAIR WAY OF ALLOCATING THE COST AND THAT WAS ONE METRIC THAT WAS POPULAR BUT THE POINT IS WELL TAKEN.
ANNETTE.

>>ANNETTE MUEHLBERG: WELL, I THINK THIS COMMITTEE ISSUE, IT'S ABOUT DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES AND TRANSPARENCY.
AND I THINK EITHER YOU JUST INCLUDE AT-LARGE OR THE AT-LARGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE SETS UP A STRATEGY COMMITTEE EVERYONE IS FREE TO JOIN.

>>VINT CERF: I'M SORRY, I GOT DISTRACTED HERE. YOU SAID INCLUDE --

>>ANNETTE MUEHLBERG: IT'S SAID IT'S ABOUT DECISION-MAKING PROCESS, IT'S ABOUT TRANSPARENCY. I MEAN, IT JUST GOES ON AND ON LIKE THIS. THIS IS OUR ISSUE, AND YOU SHOULD DO SOMETHING ABOUT THAT.

>>VINT CERF: THE STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS INCLUDES THE ALAC AND ALL OTHER SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS, SO I'M NOT SURE WHAT ELSE YOU WANT TO ADD.
IF YOU IMAGINE THAT THE STRATEGIC PLANNING COMMITTEE THAT PAUL DESCRIBED IS DOING ALL THE STRATEGIC PLANNING, THEN I COULD EASILY UNDERSTAND EVERYONE WANTS TO BE ON THE COMMITTEE.
IF IT'S AN ADJUNCT TO THE STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS, IT'S ADDITIONAL INPUT PLUS ALL THE OTHER THINGS THAT WE DO WITH THE SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS, THEN I'M NOT FOLLOWING THE LOGIC.

>>ANNETTE MUEHLBERG: WELL, VITTORIO ALREADY POINTED OUT WHAT IS THE SORT -- OR HOW DO YOU GET THE MEMBERS, WHAT IS IT ABOUT AND HOW DO YOU SET IT UP, AND HOW DO YOU CARE ABOUT THE TRANSPARENCY OF THESE PROCESSES. THIS IS NOT CLEAR.

>>VINT CERF: HAGEN.

>>HAGEN HULTZSCH: ANNETTE, I SHARE THE CHAIRMAN'S VIEW. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO ADD THERE IS NO REASON AT ALL THAT ALAC SETS UP A STRATEGY COMMITTEE. WHY DON'T YOU DO IT? AND MAYBE THE STRATEGY COMMITTEE OF ALAC FEEDS INTO THE PRESIDENT'S STRATEGY COMMITTEE. THAT'S HOW THIS ORGANIZATION WORKS.
SO NOTHING IN THE WORLD PREVENTS YOU FROM DOING WHAT YOU HAVE JUST CONSIDERED. JUST DO IT.

>>MICHAEL PALAGE: DOES NIKE GET A ROYALTY ON THE "JUST DO IT"?

>>HAGEN HULTZSCH: LET'S TALK ABOUT IT TONIGHT OVER A GLASS OF WINE.

>>VINT CERF: SUSAN.

>>SUSAN CRAWFORD: JUST VERY BRIEFLY. I THINK THE ISSUE IS ONE OF PERCEPTION AND CONCERN THAT IN AN ATMOSPHERE IN WHICH CUSTOMER SERVICE, OUTREACH, COMMUNICATIONS SEEMS TO BE GOING POORLY TO FOCUS ON A PARTICULAR GROUP OF PEOPLE AS GETTING SPECIAL ATTENTION FROM THE PRESIDENT AND CEO MAY BE TROUBLING.
I PERSONALLY THINK THAT PAUL SHOULD BE ABLE TO TALK TO WHO HE WANTS TO IN CONNECTION WITH THE STRATEGIC PLAN. BUT I ALSO UNDERSTAND THE PERCEPTION THAT THIS IS A SPECIAL GROUP THAT WILL BE LISTENED TO SPECIALLY.
I THINK THERE IS SORT OF A DISCONNECT IN THE CONVERSATION HERE.

>>VINT CERF: PAUL.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: ONE OF MY CONCERNS IS THAT THE DISCONNECT IS OCCURRING ABOUT THAT THE PRESIDENT AND CEO DRIVES ALL OF THIS. YOU KNOW, THIS WAS A DISCUSSION THAT TOOK PLACE IN THE BOARD FOR QUITE SOME TIME. IT WAS AN EVOLUTION OF A BOARD STRATEGY COMMITTEE AND THEN A BROADER COMMITTEE FOR THE NEED BOTH TO DRIVE STRATEGY BUT ALSO THE SENSE OF THE BOARD OF ENSURING THAT ADDITIONAL PERSPECTIVES THAT WERE CONCERNED ABOUT ICANN AND THE DNS AND CONCERNED WHERE IT WAS GOING BUT WHO DO NOT PARTICIPATE, THERE ARE PERSPECTIVES NOT REGULARLY ATTENDING THE MEETING, THAT THOSE OF US WHO ARE INVOLVED IN THE BOTTOM-UP PROCESS WOULD VALUE FROM HEARING THAT PERSPECTIVE AS A CONTRIBUTION TO THE VERY CLEAR PROCESS WE HAVE FOR STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT.
SO THERE'S NO EXCLUSION OUT. IT WAS -- THE DISCUSSION AT THE BOARD LEVEL WAS SORT OF A TWOFOLD ONE. THE BOARD WANTED TO KEEP A FOCUS ON STRATEGY, AND WE HAD QUITE A DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT ALL THROUGH LAST YEAR. I THINK THE STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS HAS BECOME CLEARER. IT'S WORKED ITS WAY THROUGH AND PEOPLE HAVE GOTTEN MORE COMFORTABLE WITH IT. THERE'S NO WALKING AWAY FROM THAT. BUT PART OF THE OTHER DISCUSSION WAS A LITTLE BIT OF LET'S BE CAREFUL OF THE THINGS WE DON'T KNOW WE DON'T KNOW, IF YOU LIKE.
AND LET'S BE CAREFUL WHEN WE ARE THINKING -- IF YOU LOOK AT THAT STRATEGIC PLAN, A LOT OF MEMBERS IN THE COMMUNITY FOCUS A LOT ON -- I THINK HAVE BEEN FOCUSING AT THE END PART OF IT AT THE MOMENT AND HAVE FORGOTTEN THAT THE FIRST PART OF THE PLANNING PROCESS WAS FOCUSING A LOT ON THOSE, WHAT ARE THE CHALLENGES WE FACE IN THE FUTURE? REMEMBER THERE'S A FIRST PAGE OF THE STRATEGIC PLAN THAT HAS THE CHALLENGES IN THE FUTURE, WHAT ARE THE CHALLENGES WE ARE FACING. AND THERE WAS A BIT OF A CONCERN I THINK AMONGST THE BOARD MEMBERS AND OTHERS LET'S MAKE CERTAIN WE HAVE A GOOD WAY OF CAPTURING ADDITIONALLY -- LET'S TRY TO MAKE CERTAIN WE ARE NOT JUST -- WE'VE GOT PERSPECTIVES THAT CAN ACTUALLY GIVE RICHNESS TO THAT UNDERSTANDING AND WHAT ARE THE CHALLENGES FACING US THAT WE HAVE TO MAKE A STRATEGY IN THE CONTEXT OF.
AND THAT'S THE ORIGIN OF THESE SORTS OF PEOPLE.
AND I SUPPOSE, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE IN THERE AT THE MOMENT ARE NOT SURPRISING BECAUSE OF THE WSIS PROCESS HAS GONE OUT AND BECAUSE WE HAVE AN MOU PROCESS GOING OUT SO THERE IS A GOVERNMENTAL OR POLITICAL AS SPEC TO IT. BUT THERE ARE OTHERS AS WELL THAT ARE OPEN TO ATTEND. BUT THERE IS NO ATTEMPT TO REPLACE THE STRATEGIC PLAN INSIDE.

>>VINT CERF: LET'S MOVE ON.

>>ROB HALL: I HAVE A SPECIAL QUESTION ABOUT THE RECONSIDERATION COMMITTEE. I WILL SAVE MY COMMENTS ON THE .COM FOR LATER SO YOU CAN GET THROUGH THIS LINE.
I WONDER IF YOU CAN PUT THE REPORT OF JONATHON NEVETT'S RECONSIDERATION UP BECAUSE THERE IS A SPECIFIC POINT I WANT TO ASK A QUESTION ABOUT.
WHILE THEY ARE DOING THAT, I WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE RECONSIDERATION COMMITTEE FOR, I THINK, WHAT THEY HAVE DONE IS CLEARLY OUTLINED WHAT FACTS THEY ARE GOING TO BE LOOKING FOR IN A RECONSIDERATION REQUEST. AND I'M SURE THE FUTURE REQUESTS WILL NOW CONFORM MORE TO THE ISSUES YOU ARE LOOKING FOR.
MY QUESTION GOES TO -- IF WE ARE ABLE TO GET IT UP. I'M SORRY? IS THAT POSSIBLE OR NOT?

>>VINT CERF: THEY ARE WORKING ON IT.

>>ROB HALL: MY QUESTION GOES TO, AND WHEN I SEE THE EXACT WORDS, PERHAPS WE CAN CLARIFY THEM. I BELIEVE ONE OF THE POINTS WAS THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, JON WAS SAYING THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE -- SORRY, THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE HAD NOT YET BEEN HEARD ON THIS, AND THE FOLLOWING POINT HE CAN PRESSED THE BOARD HAD, IN FACT, HEARD THE VIEWS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES.
AND I'M WONDERING IF THE BOARD CAN CONFIRM THAT THEY HAVE, IN FACT, HAD APPROVAL FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IN THE UNITED STATES ON THIS AGREEMENT.

>>VINT CERF: NO, WE DIDN'T HAVE APPROVAL FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

>>ROB HALL: SORRY. HAD A VIEW FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ON THIS AGREEMENT.

>>VINT CERF: WE HAD A VIEW CONVEYED TO US BY THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE --

>>ROB HALL: NOT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AS WAS REFERRED.

>>VINT CERF: -- WHO HAD, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, CONSULTED WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

>>ROB HALL: I WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR HERE, VINT, BECAUSE THE WORDING OF THE RECONSIDERATION REQUEST REFERRED I BELIEVE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, AND I BELIEVE THE RECONSIDERATION COMMITTEE HAS JUST SAID THEY HEARD A REVIEW FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.
SO IT'S YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT YOU HAVE HEARD THAT VIEW.

>>VINT CERF: NO. WHAT WE HAVE IS A VIEW OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE WHO CONSULTED WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, AS I UNDERSTAND IT.
WE WEREN'T PARTY TO ANY INTERACTIONS BETWEEN THE DOC AND THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

>>ROB HALL: BUT YOU HAVE RULED AGAINST THE RECONSIDERATION REQUEST IN PART BY SAYING YOU HAVE ALREADY HEARD THE VIEW OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WHICH IS PART OF THE --

>>VINT CERF: FIRST OF ALL, LET'S BE CAREFUL ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TEXT HERE, WHICH, YOU KNOW -- SO THE FACTS ARE --

>>ROB HALL: ANOTHER PAGE FORWARD, PLEASE. ONE MORE.

>>VINT CERF: THE FACTS ARE THAT WE HEARD --

>>ROB HALL: ONE MORE. I'M SORRY. ONE MORE.
AGAIN. NEXT PAGE. AGAIN. ONE MORE. THERE. THE LAST POINT. THE SECOND TO LAST POINT SAYS, THEY COULD NOT PROVIDE THE VIEWS OF THE DOJ ON PRICING, AND THE LAST POINT SAYS THAT THE VIEWS WERE RECEIVED BY THE BOARD AND WERE, IN FACT, DISCUSSED AT LENGTH.
I'M JUST ASKING FOR CLARIFICATION. IS THAT A FACTUAL STATEMENT THAT YOU HAVE RECEIVED THE VIEWS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE?

>>VINT CERF: I NOW SAID THREE TIMES, ROB, THAT WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED DIRECT COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. IN THE COURSE OF OUR DELIBERATIONS, WE RECEIVED REPRESENTATIONS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE.

>>ROB HALL: BUT THE RECONSIDERATION REQUEST, ONE OF THE THINGS THEY ARE CLEARLY SAYING IS THAT YOU HAVE.
I THANK YOU FOR YOUR CLARIFICATION, VINT, BUT --

>>VINT CERF: WELL, THEN WE WILL REPAIR THAT APPARENT INACCURATE STATEMENT.

>>ROB HALL: ARE YOU WAITING FOR VIEWS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE?

>>VINT CERF: NO.

>>ROB HALL: BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S WHAT THE RECONSIDERATION REQUEST WAS SUGGESTING.
AND I'LL LET JONATHON NEVETT SPEAK TO THE RECONSIDERATION REQUEST.

>>VINT CERF: I THINK WE ARE WAITING FOR COUNSEL.

>>ROB HALL: THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: PAUL.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: THANK YOU, VINT. I JUST WANT TO MAKE CERTAIN WE ARE VERY CLEAR. IT SEEMS ROB IS ASKING FOR CLARITY AND WE WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR ABOUT THIS SO LET'S BE VERY CLEAR.
WE DID CONSULT WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AT THEIR REQUEST, WHILE THEY WERE CONDUCTING THEIR PROCESS AT THE REQUEST OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE. BUT WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. WE HAVE ONLY RECEIVED COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE.
LE ME BE QUITE PRECISE. THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE SOUGHT TO TAKE ADVICE IN THE PROCESS ALSO. AT THE MOMENT, SOUGHT TO TAKE ADVICE FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CONSULTED WITH US IN THEIR PROCESS, SO WE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FROM THE QUESTIONS THEY HAVE ASKED, BUT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE -- ANY COMMUNICATIONS WE HAVE RECEIVED IN THIS PROCESS, AS OPPOSED TO QUESTIONS, ANY COMMUNICATIONS WE HAVE RECEIVED ARE FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, NOT FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

>>ROB HALL: I THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT, PAUL, BECAUSE I THINK THERE IS A MISCONCEPTION IN PEOPLE I TALKED TO THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE HAS SOMEHOW APPROVED THIS WHEN IN FACT I DON'T BELIEVE THEY HAVE. AND I THINK YOU ARE NOW SAYING THERE HASN'T BEEN COMMUNICATION YOU FROM THEM DIRECTLY TO YOU.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: I THINK LET'S BE CLEAR ON THIS. THIS HAS BEEN -- ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S ALSO CAUSED -- ONE OF THE NATURES OF THE SHIFTING SANDS OF THIS PROCESS HAS BEEN THAT THERE WAS -- THAT INITIAL PROCESS OF SEEKING ADVICE TOOK PLACE EARLY. WE THEN HAD PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS. WE HAD, AS YOU KNOW, THE DISCUSSIONS, RENEGOTIATIONS. THE PARTIES WERE ABLE TO PUT BACK A RENEWED AGREEMENT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE. THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE HAS BEEN IN DISCUSSION WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AGAIN. THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AGAIN HAS BEEN DOING A FOLLOW-ON PROCESS OR DOING AN ADDITIONAL PROCESS. AND THEN IT SEEMS TO BE COMING THROUGH.
SO WE DON'T HAVE A FINAL -- FINAL COMMUNICATION TO US FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE ON THE FINAL AGREEMENT AS OPPOSED TO WHAT WAS A DRAFT AGREEMENT THAT WAS ALWAYS GOING TO GO TO PUBLIC CONSULTATION.
I CAN UNDERSTAND THE CONFUSION BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN COMPLEX.

>>ROB HALL: THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: OKAY. ALEX HAS HIS HAND UP, AND WE HAVE A GROWING LIST OF PEOPLE HERE. SO BEFORE ALEX MAKES HIS COMMENT, I AM GOING TO DO TWO THINGS. FIRST OF ALL, I AM SKIPPING THE BREAK TODAY. IF YOU NEED TO TAKE A BREAK, FEEL FREE TO LEAVE THE ROOM. THAT GOES FOR THE BOARD AS WELL AS ATTENDEES. AND SECOND I MAY HAVE TO REMOVE SOME THINGS FROM THE AGENDA IF I AM NOT ABLE TO COMPLETE THE SESSIONS AS SCHEDULED.
ALEX AND THEN BRET.

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: VINT, I JUST WANT TO STATE A VERY SPECIFIC DISCOMFORT, AND WE MAY NEED TO HAVE LEGAL COUNSEL AS WE PROCEED HERE WITH ANY TYPE OF REPLY. AND WE MAY NEED TO RESERVE OUR RIGHT TO REPLY LATER TO THE QUESTIONS THAT ARE COMING FROM -- BECAUSE THEY ARE COMING FROM PARTIES THAT ARE SUING US OR THAT STAND TO GAIN FROM LAWSUITS THAT ARE BEING MADE. AND WHILE RELATIVELY OPEN DISCLOSURES ARE AVAILABLE FROM SOME OF THESE PARTIES, I REALLY FEEL VERY UNCOMFORTABLE BEING IN FOREIGN TERRITORY UNDER A LAW THAT'S NOT THE ONE IN MY COUNTRY, HAVING TO RESPOND TO THINGS THAT ARE VERY MUCH WHAT I WOULD IMAGINE WILL ALSO BE THE REQUEST OF THE POSITIONS IN AN INTERROGATION BEFORE A COURT OR DISCOVERY PROCESS OR WHATEVER.
SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE NOT SHORTCUTTING OR SHUNTING AROUND ANY OF THOSE LEGAL PROCEDURES OR THAT THE PARTIES ARE NOT GOING TO TAKE CAREFUL NOTES AND THEN SEE WHAT USE CAN BE USED OF THESE INFORMAL, CHATTY KIND OF RESPONSES WE CAN PROVIDE FOR TRANSPARENCY AND FOR WARM, CONTINUOUS COMMUNICATION.
AS ONE OF THE SPEAKERS IN THE AUDIENCE SAID, THIS IS WHAT WE COME HERE FOR. THIS IS WHAT THE PEOPLE TRAVEL FOR. PEOPLE IN THE ICANN COMMUNITY TRAVEL TO ICANN MEETINGS FOR BEING ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THESE DIALOGUE.
WE TRY TO PROVIDE GOOD, PROMPT, CLEAR RESPONSES. BUT BY DOING THAT IN PROCESSES THAT ARE ALSO ENTANGLED IN LEGAL PROCEEDINGS, WE MAY REALLY BE WALKING INTO DANGEROUS TERRITORY.

>>VINT CERF: I'M SURE, ALEX, THAT OTHERS SITTING HERE HAVE SIMILAR CONCERNS.
I WOULD NOTE, MR. FAUSETT, THAT YOU ARE PARTY TO ONE OF THOSE SUITS. IS THAT CORRECT?

>>BRET FAUSETT: I AM NOT A PARTY. I AM NOT SUING ICANN. I AM COUNSEL FOR A PARTY WHO IS SUING --

>>VINT CERF: YOU ARE COUNSEL FOR A PARTY. THANK YOU. THAT DOES INVOLVE YOU IN SOME WAY, DOES IT NOT?

>>BRET FAUSETT: ABSOLUTELY. BUT IT WOULD NOT BE CORRECT TO SAY I AM A PARTY.

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: SORRY, BRET. IN MY ORGANIZATION -- THIS MIGHT BE A QUESTION OF INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION. IN MY COUNTRY, ON MANY OF THOSE THAT I KNOW, IF I WENT OUT AND DID SOMETHING THAT DAMAGED THE CAUSE OF MY EMPLOYER, I WOULD BE -- WELL, SINCE MY EMPLOYER IS FUNDED WITH PUBLIC FUNDS, ASSIGNED DIRECTLY BY CONGRESS IN MEXICO, I AM ACTUALLY SUBJECT TO A LAW THAT WILL DEBILITATE ME FOR 20 YEARS OR PUT ME IN JAIL IF I DID SOMETHING TO JEOPARDIZE THE SUCCESS OF MY INSTITUTION. AND I WON'T IMAGINE THAT YOUR LAW FIRM WOULD NOT TAKE LIGHTLY IF YOU DID SOMETHING NOW THAT DID NOT CONTRIBUTE TO THE SUCCESS OF THE LAWSUITS THEY ARE CARRYING.

>>BRET FAUSETT: I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW MANY TIMES OVER THE YEARS JOE SIMS HAS STOOD AT THIS MICROPHONE AND TOLD EVERYONE HE WAS SPEAKING IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY. SO I EXPECT THE SAME COURTESY THAT YOU GIVE TO YOUR OWN LAWYERS.
[ APPLAUSE ]

>>VINT CERF: SO I SHOULD MAKE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE LAWYERS THAT ARE SUING ME AND THE ONES THAT ARE DEFENDING ME. THAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE A JOKE, BRET. YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO LAUGH.
GO AHEAD.

>>BRET FAUSETT: I WANT TO MAKE TWO QUICK POINTS IN DEFERENCE TO THE LONG LINE BEHIND ME.
I APPRECIATE THE REPORT FROM THE RECONSIDERATION COMMITTEE. LISTENING TO IT, IT WAS HARD NOT TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT ALL ROADS LEAD TO "WE WERE RIGHT."
INFORMATION THAT WAS PRESENTED BEFORE THE CUT-OFF WAS ALREADY CONSIDERED. INFORMATION THAT CAME IN AFTER WAS TOO LATE.
YOU KNOW, HOW DO YOU MAKE DECISIONS IN THE RECONSIDERATION COMMITTEE? I THINK IT WOULD HELP THOSE OF US WHO PARTICIPATE IN THE COMMUNITY IN VARIOUS CAPACITIES TO UNDERSTAND EXACTLY HOW THE BOARD OR THE RECONSIDERATION COMMITTEE WILL VIEW THINGS IN THE FUTURE. BECAUSE I COULDN'T QUITE NAVIGATE HOW TO ADDRESS WHAT WOULD BE A -- AN ADEQUATE RECONSIDERATION REQUEST BASED ON THE INFORMATION WE RECEIVED TODAY.

>>VINT CERF: DO YOU WANT TO -- JUST A -- PETER WANTS. GO AHEAD, PETER.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: I THINK I CAN HELP WITH THAT BECAUSE AS I SAID I WAS IN THIS POSITION OF HAVING VOTED AGAINST THE DECISION.
BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE RULES OF THE RECONSIDERATION COMMITTEE, THEY ARE VERY NARROW. IT'S NOT AN APPEALS PROCESS. IT'S NOT -- MOST OF THOSE RECONSIDERATION APPLICATIONS HAD THE APPEARANCE OF AN APPEAL, SAYING YOU THAT WE DON'T LIKE THE DECISION YOU HAVE MADE, YOU HAVE GONE WRONG IN MAKE YOUR DECISION, PLEASE COME TO ANOTHER CONCLUSION. RECONSIDERATION IS NOT AN APPEALS PROCESS. WAS THAT INFORMATION AVAILABLE? WITHOUT GOING INTO DETAIL, LARGELY, YES. THIS COMMUNITY WENT INTO A GREAT DEAL OF TROUBLE TO MAKE ALMOST ALL OF THAT MATERIAL AVAILABLE TO US.
SO WE HAD THAT MATERIAL. THOSE MUCH US WHO WERE ON THE BOARD ATTEMPT TO GO PERSUADE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS TO VOTE AGAINST IT WERE USING THAT MATERIAL TO DISCUSS THE MATTER.
SO RECONSIDERATION IS NOT THE AVENUE FOR GETTING US TO CHANGE OUR MIND ONCE WE'VE MADE A DECISION YOU DON'T LIKE.

>>BRET FAUSETT: I WOULD SUBMIT TO YOU THAT THERE OUGHT TO BE A WAY OF TELLING YOU TO CHANGE YOUR MIND WHEN WE THINK YOU'RE WRONG.
AND MAYBE WE OUGHT TO HAVE A CONVERSATION AROUND THAT.
BUT LET ME GO TO MY SECOND POINT.
AND THAT IS, GOES BACK TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST POINT I MADE YESTERDAY.
WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE A BOTTOM-UP ORGANIZATION.
AND I THINK ICANN NEEDS TO BE AWARE THAT EVERY PRESIDENT'S COMMITTEE ON STRATEGIC PLANNING, IDNS, WHATEVER, CREATES AN IMPRESSION THAT WE'RE GOING TOP-DOWN, THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO HAVE SPECIAL ACCESS TO THE PRESIDENT.
AND I AGREE WITH SUSAN, YOU OUGHT TO BE ABLE TO TALK TO WHOMEVER YOU WISH.
BUT PRESIDENT'S COMMITTEES GIVE A TOP-DOWN IMPRESSION.
AND I THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO WORK HARD TO CORRECT THAT AND MAKE IT REALLY WORK THE WAY IT'S SUPPOSED TO, BOTTOM-UP.
THANKS.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: JUST A QUICK RESPONSE TO THAT.
IN FACT, THIS IS DESIGNED TO ENCOURAGE TRANSPARENCY.
ONE OF MY CONCERNS IN DISCUSSING THIS EARLY ON WAS THAT THE CORPORATION WAS SPENDING A LARGE AMOUNT OF MONEY WITHOUT A VERY CLEAR STRATEGY THAT HAD BEEN DEVELOPED IN RESPONDING TO THE WSIS.
NOW, WHAT THIS WILL DO IS MAKE SURE THAT THOSE DISCUSSIONS ARE -- TAKE PLACE WITHIN A FORMAL STRUCTURE WHICH CAN BE BUDGETED AND WHICH WILL BE ACCOUNTED FOR.

>>BRET FAUSETT: WILL WE HAVE TRANSPARENCY AROUND THE PRESIDENT'S STRATEGIC COMMITTEE?
WILL THEY DO THEIR WORK ONLINE AND IN PUBLIC?

>>PAUL TWOMEY: OBVIOUSLY, WE'RE GOING TO OPERATE SIMILARLY TO THE OTHER COMMITTEES WE HAVE.
THE SECURITY AND STABILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE HAS -- IS, I THINK, A GOOD MODEL.
I DON'T WANT TO PUT STEVE OR ANYBODY ELSE INTO TRYING TO DEFEND THE WAY THEY RUN THEIR COMMITTEE.
BUT WE HAVE A MODEL OF THERE WILL BE ONLINE DISCUSSION, BUT THERE'LL BE A MODEL WHERE WE CAN HAVE PUBLIC PROCESSES AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE -- I MEAN, IT'S MY EXPECTATION THAT THERE WILL BE, YOU KNOW, PUBLIC CONSIDERATION, PUTTING THINGS OUT FOR COMMENT, PUTTING ANY ADVICE THAT COMES, WHICH IS MORE THAN JUST A CHAT ON THE LINE, BE PUT OUT.
THAT'S MY EXPECTATION.
I THINK IF WE WERE TO SAY ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING THAT THESE PEOPLE OR ANY GROUP OF PEOPLE WANTS TO SORT OF DISCUSS ON AN E-MAIL IS AVAILABLE FOR EVERYBODY TO READ, I EXPECT THAT WOULD BE DYSFUNCTIONAL.
BUT THAT'S MY VIEW.
CAN -- BRET, CAN I JUST SAY, IF YOU DON'T MIND, I ACTUALLY SHARE YOUR SAME CONCERN.
YOU AND I PROBABLY WOULD NOT END UP WITH THE SAME SOLUTIONS TO THE PROBLEM, LIKE THE LAST ANSWER PROBABLY INDICATES, BUT I ACTUALLY ALSO SHARE YOUR CONCERN.
I'M ALSO, ON A PERSONAL LEVEL, UNCOMFORTABLE.
WE HAVE THIS THING CALLED PRESIDENT'S COMMITTEES, AS A DISTINCTION FROM A BOARD COMMITTEE.
WHAT TENDS TO MOVE AROUND, IT LOOKS TOP DOWN.
AND ME PERSONALLY, IT LOOKS LIKE I'M A COMPLETE MEGALOMANIAC.
THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO HAVE THAT VIEW, OF COURSE. AND I ALSO SHARE THAT DISCOMFORT.
AND SO I AM LOOKING -- AS THE PRESIDENT, I AM LOOKING FOR TOOLS AND ADVICE PEOPLE HAVE OF BEING POTENTIAL MODELS FOR COMMUNICATION.
I MADE A COMMENT YESTERDAY ABOUT PUBLIC COMMUNICATION WHICH I NOTICE YOU'RE THE GENERAL MANAGER OF PUBLIC -- I KNOW THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS YOU'RE VERY DEDICATED TO.
SO, YOU KNOW, I WANT TO REINFORCE THE SAME CONCERN.
I PERSONALLY HAVE THE SAME CONCERN THAT YOU JUST EXPRESSED.
SO....

>>VINT CERF: OKAY.
LET'S MOVE ON NOW.
THANK YOU.

>>WENDY SELTZER: THANK YOU.
IT SOUNDS AS THOUGH A LOT OF THE -- I APPRECIATED THE REPORT FROM THE RECONSIDERATION COMMITTEE.
I APPRECIATE YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT THAT THIS IS VERY, VERY NARROW, AND I THINK THAT THAT'S PART OF THE PROBLEM HERE, THAT, AS I WAS LISTENING TO THE REPORTS AND THEN LOOKING AT THE BYLAWS, IT SEEMS LIKE A CATCH-22.
THERE'S NO WAY TO GET AN EFFECTIVE RECONSIDERATION REQUEST IN.
BUT IT REFLECTS THE TRANSPARENCY AND OPENNESS PROBLEMS OF THE ORGANIZATION THAT SO MANY PEOPLE FEEL THEY NEED TO FILE RECONSIDERATION REQUESTS AS THEIR ONLY ROUTE TO HEAR THAT THEIR COMMENTS MADE IN THE FIRST PLACE WERE CONSIDERED.
IF THE RECONSIDERATION COMMITTEE TELLS US THAT INFORMATION WAS PRESENTED TO THE BOARD AND WAS PRESUMED TO HAVE BEEN HEARD, FOR MANY PEOPLE, THAT'S THE FIRST TIME THEY HEAR THAT THE BOARD HAS HEARD THEIR COMMENTS.
AND MORE OPENNESS THROUGH THE PERIOD OF DISCUSSION WOULD HELP TO ADDRESS THOSE CONCERNS.
I UNDERSTAND, OF COURSE, THAT IN THE COURSE OF A LITIGATION, ONE IS CONSTRAINED IN HOW OPEN ONE CAN BE.
BUT AT THE SAME TIME, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE NARROWNESS OF THE RECONSIDERATION PROCESS AND THE OPENNESS, IF YOU WILL, OF A LITIGATION PROCESS MIGHT EXPLAIN WHY PEOPLE FEEL IMPELLED TOWARD LITIGATION.
IN LITIGATION IN THE UNITED STATES, WE HAVE NOTICE PLEADING.
IF YOU SET OUT A BARE COMPLAINT WITH A SET OF FACTS THAT COULD GIVE RISE TO A CAUSE OF ACTION, THAT'S ENOUGH FOR YOU TO MOVE FORWARD WITH DISCOVERY THAT ALLOWS YOU TO FIGURE OUT WHAT'S BEEN HAPPENING AND WHETHER REQUESTS WERE, IN FACT, CONSIDERED PROPERLY.
IF THEY WERE -- I'M NOT SAYING THAT ALL OF THAT NEEDS TO BE FORMALIZED IN THE SAME WAY IN THIS ORGANIZATION.
BUT IF THERE WERE MORE WAYS TO FIND OUT THAT INFORMATION SUBMITTED WAS, IN FACT, CONSIDERED IN THE PROCESS OF DECISION-MAKING, THEN PERHAPS FEWER PEOPLE WOULD FEEL THE NEED TO USE THE RECONSIDERATION PROCESS AS AN APPEAL MECHANISM.
AND FEWER PEOPLE PERHAPS WOULD FEEL THE NEED TO GO OUTSIDE OF THE ICANN PROCESS IN LITIGATIONS IF THEY COULD WORK WITHIN THE ORGANIZATION.
AND I JUST WANT TO FURTHER REITERATE THE POINT MADE BY SOME OF MY AT-LARGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE COLLEAGUES ON THE STRATEGY COMMITTEE, YES, IT'S TRUE THAT -- OR I BELIEVE IT'S TRUE FROM THE STRUCTURE THAT AT LARGE SHOULD BE ABLE TO PROVIDE ITS OWN INPUT WITHOUT NEEDING TO BE PART OF THE STRATEGY COMMITTEE.
BUT WHEN WE PROVIDE OUR OWN INPUT, AS WE HAVE DISCUSSED WITH YOU IN THE PAST, WE OFTEN DON'T GET A RESPONSE.
AND SO WHEN A COMMITTEE IS OPENED UP WITH A DIRECT LINE OF COMMUNICATION TO THE PRESIDENT AND YET THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE DOESN'T SEEM TO GET THAT SAME DIRECT LINE, WE FEEL THAT WE NEED TO ASK FOR SPOTS ON THAT COMMITTEE.
AS ANNETTE HAS SAID, WE ARE GOING TO OPEN UP OUR OWN STRATEGY DISCUSSIONS, AND WE VERY MUCH HOPE THAT ANYONE WILL FEEL FREE TO JOIN US AND, FURTHER, THAT THOSE DISCUSSIONS WILL BE ABLE TO ENGAGE AS MUCH OF THE STAFF AND BOARD'S ATTENTION AS THESE SPECIALLY SELECTED MEMBERS OF THE PRESIDENT'S COMMITTEE.

>>VINT CERF: OKAY.
VENI, YOU WANTED TO RESPOND, I THINK.

>>VENI MARKOVSKI: ACTUALLY, I WANT TO SAY THAT WHAT WENDY IS SAYING KIND OF STRIKES ME THAT PEOPLE SEEM TO HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE FACT THAT WE ACTUALLY HAVE BEEN READING, I WOULD EASILY SAY, THOUSANDS OF PAGES, MAYBE EVEN MORE, SOME OF US, OF INFORMATION WHICH WAS DELIVERED TO US THROUGH A NUMBER OF CHANNELS: PUBLIC FORUMS, DOCUMENTS, PAPERS, WHATEVER.
I MEAN, WE ACTUALLY -- I DON'T KNOW -- I MEAN, I CANNOT SPEAK FOR "WE," BUT I CAN SAY FOR MYSELF, I SPENT ENDLESS NUMBER OF HOURS JUST READING.
AND I DON'T COUNT THE TIME THAT I'VE BEEN KIND OF ABSORBING WHAT'S BEING SENT.
AND WE -- THE BOARD, I BELIEVE EVERYONE ON THE BOARD IS LIKE THAT.
I MEAN, WE DON'T TAKE DECISIONS BASED ON FEELINGS OR JUST ON RECOMMENDATIONS FROM SOMEBODY, BE THAT STAFF, BOARD CHAIR, OR SOMEBODY ELSE.
I MEAN, THE FACT THAT THE DISCUSSIONS WERE SO LONG, THAT WE WERE -- WE AGREED TO POSTPONE DECISIONS ALL THE TIME.
I MEAN, THAT ACTUALLY IS A SIGN.
AND MAYBE YOU ARE RIGHT.
MAYBE WE HAVEN'T COMMUNICATED THAT TO THE ICANN COMMUNITY.

>>VINT CERF: JOI.
AND THEN PROFESSOR QIAN.

>>JOICHI ITO: I THINK THIS GOES BACK TO THE TRANSPARENCY ARGUMENT.
I THINK THAT IF WE HAD TRANSCRIPTS OF OUR BOARD CONVERSATIONS, THIS WOULDN'T BE AN ISSUE.
AND I -- BUT I THINK THE CONSENSUS OF THE BOARD IS, WE'RE NOT THERE YET.
BUT I DO KIND OF HAVE SYMPATHY FOR WENDY'S POSITION.
AND I DON'T THINK, PERSONALLY, THAT ASSERTING THAT WE'VE READ THOUSANDS OF PAGES AND TALKING ABOUT HOW MUCH TIME WE'VE SPENT IS ENOUGH FEEDBACK ABOUT WHETHER SOMEBODY'S COMMENTS WERE CONSIDERED.
AND SO IF WE AREN'T GOING TO GIVE DETAILED TRANSCRIPTS, I DO THINK IT IS THE OBLIGATION ON OUR PART TO FIGURE OUT SOME WAY TO AT LEAST ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CERTAIN KINDS OF THINGS.
WE HAVE BEEN POSTING -- I REALIZE WE'VE BEEN POSTING COMMENTS, WE'VE HAD BOARD OPINIONS DURING THE VOTE.
BUT I STILL THINK THAT IF WE CAN SIT DOWN AND TRYING TO THINK OF A CLEVER AND MORE EFFICIENT WAY TO COMMUNICATE ACKNOWLEDGMENT, I MEAN, WE HAVEN'T DISMISS IT.
I THINK WE SHOULD CONSIDER IT.

>>VINT CERF: OH, IN FACT, WE'VE BEEN DOING THAT.
I'M SORRY, PROFESSOR QIAN, TO INTERVENE.
ONE THING THAT CAME UP IN SEVERAL OF OUR EARLIER DISCUSSIONS THIS WEEK IS THE NOTION THAT WE, IN MAKING A MAJOR DECISION LIKE THE VERISIGN ONE, WOULD BE TO SUMMARIZE THE RATIONALE FOR THAT DECISION.
WE DID A LITTLE BIT OF THAT BY HAVING EACH BOARD MEMBER SAY SOMETHING.
BUT PERHAPS A MORE THOROUGH PROCESS OF SHOWING THE ANALYSIS AND THE RATIONALE LEADING TO THE CONCLUSION WOULD BE MORE HELPFUL.
AND I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN CONSIDER AS WE MOVE FORWARD TO TRY TO INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF TRANSPARENCY THAT WE CAN -- ARE ABLE TO OFFER TO OUR CONSTITUENTS.
PROFESSOR QIAN.

>>HUALIN QIAN: OKAY, I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE PAC, PRESIDENT'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
WE SHOULD -- TO PUT THIS ISSUE IN TWO PARTS, ONE IS WHETHER WE NEED THIS COMMITTEE.
THE SECOND ONE IS HOW WE CAN CONSTRUCT THIS COMMITTEE, I MEAN, WHO ARE THE MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE, HOW TO FORM THIS COMMITTEE.
BECAUSE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE STRATEGIC PLAN HAS BEEN DISCUSSED MANY, MANY TIMES, FORUMS, WORKSHOPS, AND OPEN PUBLIC FORUMS AGAIN AND AGAIN FOR YEARS.
SO I DON'T THINK -- THE TRANSPARENCY AND THE EFFICIENCY, THEY ARE CONTRADICTIONAL.
WE SHOULD THINK ABOUT BOTH OF THEM.
WE CANNOT DO THINGS ENDLESS, LAST A VERY LONG TIME.
SO, IN MY PERSONAL OPINION, A PAC IS NECESSARY, BECAUSE WE HAVE MORE PEOPLE FOCUSED ON THEM THINKING ABOUT THAT, THAT WE HAVE GOOD EFFICIENCY TO PUT FORWARD OUR WORK.
AND THE SECOND ISSUE IS HOW TO -- AS VITTORIO AND ANNETTE, THEY ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE MEMBERSHIP.
THAT'S A TRUE QUESTION.
SO I THINK THIS SHOULD BE A DIVERSITY OF MEMBERS FROM DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES, FROM DIFFERENT SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS.
AND SO I -- MAY I SUGGEST THAT TO FORM THIS COMMITTEE, WE NEED SOMEBODY TO RECOMMEND CANDIDATES FROM DIFFERENT PARTS, AND THEN THEY CAN HAVE DIFFERENT VIEWS ABOUT, FOR EXAMPLE, THE STRATEGIC PLAN.
SO THAT'S -- MAYBE WE STILL CAN HAVE OPINIONS FROM THE PUBLIC, FROM EVERYBODY TAKEN INTO THIS COMMITTEE, AND TO GIVE THE RESULT TO THE PRESIDENT.
THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, PROFESSOR QIAN.
IT OCCURS TO ME THAT THE PRESIDENT'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE WOULD BE EXPECTED TO PRODUCE REPORTS.
AND THOSE REPORTS COULD PRESUMABLY BE SHARED SO THAT EVERYONE WOULD, IN FACT, SEE WHAT THE ADVICE WAS THAT CAME FROM THAT COMMITTEE.
AND, OF COURSE, THAT ADVICE WOULD BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN THE PRODUCTION OF A FINAL STRATEGIC PLAN OR OTHER STRATEGIC DOCUMENT.
MR. TURCOTTE.

>>BERNARD TURCOTTE: THANK YOU, VINT.
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, THANK YOU FOR EXPRESSING THE CONCERN ABOUT THE MINUTES.
AND I DON'T HAVE A LOFTY QUESTION.
I JUST HAVE A VERY SMALL PRACTICAL QUESTION, JUST TO BE CLEAR.
WILL THE MISSING MINUTES BE PRODUCED?

>>VINT CERF: ABSOLUTELY.

>>BERNARD TURCOTTE: THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: I'M SORRY.
MICHAEL IS LEVITATING OUT OF THE CHAIR.
GO AHEAD.

>>MICHAEL PALAGE: THE BYLAWS DO PROVIDE THAT THERE ARE SOME MINUTES THAT WILL NOT BE PRODUCED, REGARDING PERSONNEL MATTERS.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THERE ARE, INDEED, SUBJECT TO THOSE CONSTRAINTS.
THANK YOU FOR THAT REMINDER, MIKE.
BUT MOST OF THE MINUTES I THINK BERNIE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT HAD SPECIFICALLY TO DO WITH ALL OF OUR REGULAR MEETINGS, NOT ABOUT PERSONNEL MATTERS.
BUT THANKS FOR THAT REMINDER.
PLEASE GO AHEAD.

>>COLIN JACKSON: THANK YOU, VINT.
I'M COLIN JACKSON.
I'M NOT A LAWYER, AND I'M NOT SUING ANYONE.
I'M PRESIDENT OF INTERNETNZ, THE LOCAL HOST AND THE NEW ZEALAND CCTLD MANAGER.
[ APPLAUSE ]

>>COLIN JACKSON: YOU'RE VERY KIND.
THANK YOU.
AS AN OPEN MEMBERSHIP, NOT-FOR-PROFIT SOCIETY, WE REPRESENT THE LOCAL INTERNET COMMUNITY, NOT JUST THE .NZ REGISTRANTS.
LIKE .CA, .NZ CONSIDERED THAT WE HAVE SUPPORTED ICANN VERY STRONGLY BOTH WITHIN THE INTERNET AND BEFORE OUR GOVERNMENT AND BEFORE GOVERNMENTS IN GENERAL THROUGH THE WSIS PROCESS AND SUCH LIKE.
MY PURPOSE IN MAKING THIS COMMENT IS JUST TO PLACE ON RECORD INTERNETNZ'S CONCERNS ABOUT THE VERISIGN SETTLEMENT, SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE ACCOUNTABILITY AROUND THAT.
PUBLIC MEETINGS WERE VERY STRONGLY AGAINST THE SETTLEMENT.
AND, OF COURSE, YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO WHAT A MEETING SAYS, BUT YOU DO NEED A VERY GOOD REASON.
AND WE ALL KNOW THAT THERE ARE REASONS THAT THE BOARD HAS MADE THIS DECISION.
BOARD MEMBERS MADE THIS VERY CLEAR IN THE STATEMENTS THEY HAVE PUBLISHED.
BUT SOMEHOW, THOSE REASONS DON'T SEEM TERRIBLY ADEQUATE TO MANY PEOPLE IN THE INTERNET COMMUNITY.
AS THE WORLD IS FULLY AWAY, .NZ STANDS FOR OPEN COMPETITION IN INTERNET PROVISION.
AND IT WOULD APPEAR THAT THE BOARD'S DECISION HERE IS ALLOWING AN ORGANIZATION THAT ALREADY HAS SIGNIFICANT MARKET POWER TO INCREASE THAT POWER, WHICH WILL ULTIMATELY BE IN NOBODY'S INTEREST BUT ITS SHAREHOLDERS.
SO INTERNETNZ REGRETS THAT A BOTTOM-UP PROCESS LIKE ICANN'S CAN ARRIVE AT A DECISION LIKE THIS.
THANKS.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COLIN.
[ APPLAUSE ]

>>VINT CERF: I THINK THIS IS, I'M SURE, EXPRESSING A POPULAR VIEW, BASED ON THE APPLAUSE.
I GUESS I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST TO YOU THAT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IS IMPORTANT FOR EVERY USER OF THE INTERNET IS THAT EVERY SYSTEM THAT IS PART OF THE INTERNET'S OPERATION OPERATE SUCCESSFULLY AND OPERATE RELIABLY.
AND SPEAKING ONLY FOR MYSELF, I WAS PERSUADED BY THE MATERIALS PRESENTED THAT VERISIGN PROPOSALS WERE, IN FACT, CONSISTENT WITH THAT VIEW AND THAT THE FRAMEWORK IN WHICH THIS PARTICULAR AGREEMENT WAS STRUCTURED WAS INTENDED AND, IN FACT, DOES SUPPLY STABILITY FOR THE USERS OF THE DOT COM AND DOT NET DNS TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS.
SO I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD FORGET THAT IF ALL THE PIECES OF THE INTERNET DON'T EFFECTIVELY PAY FOR THEMSELVES, THEY WILL GO AWAY.
AND I DON'T THINK THAT SERVES ANYONE'S INTEREST.
PAUL.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: THANK YOU, VINT.
I WONDER IF I CAN ALSO RESPOND, IF YOU DON'T MIND, ON THAT SAME TOPIC, JUST TO MAKE THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION.
NOW I'M SPEAKING AS A BOARD MEMBER.
THERE ARE SOME OF US ON THE BOARD HERE WHO WERE ON THE BOARD WHEN THE SITE FINDER INCIDENTS STARTS.
AND THERE ARE SOME OF US WHO WERE NOT.
AND THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS WITH OUR BOARD CHANGEOVER.
I HAVE TO SAY THAT ONE OF THE THINGS -- IN THIS WHOLE PROCESS, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I PERSONALLY HAVE BEEN SO INCREDIBLY FOCUSED ON WAS ENSURING THAT THAT SORT OF WALK AWAY -- WALK AWAY, COMPLETELY WALK AWAY FROM THIS SORT OF SYSTEM, DO WHAT I WANT WITH MY COMPANY, AND VERY, VERY, VERY, VERY NARROWLY DEFINE WHAT A REGISTRY SERVICE AGREEMENT IS WAS A VERY IMPORTANT PART FOR ME IN THE DISCUSSION OF TRYING TO DEAL WITH WHAT THE DEFINITION OF REGISTRY SERVICE WAS AND AS A CONSEQUENCE, FREEDOM TO DO THINGS THAT HAD NO PURVIEW AT ALL.
I RECOGNIZE ALL THE ISSUES PEOPLE HAVE RAISED.
I'M NOT TRYING TO DISCREDIT THEM.
BUT THAT JUST STRIKES ME IN THE DISCUSSION WE'VE HAD IN THE LAST MONTH OR TWO THAT THAT PARTICULAR POINT DOESN'T SEEM TO GET DISCUSSED VERY MUCH IN THE PUBLIC.
AND I THINK IT'S A VERY IMPORTANT POINT IN THIS VERY DIFFICULT PROCESS THAT WE'VE BEEN THROUGH.
SO I THINK THAT'S VERY ONE POSITIVE OUTCOME.
WE ACTUALLY HAVE, YOU KNOW, REINFORCEMENT OF A VERY WIDE DEFINITION OF REGISTRY SERVICE, WE DON'T THINK IT'S A WIDE DEFINITION OF REGISTRY SERVICE.
REINFORCEMENT OF A DEFINITION OF REGISTRY SERVICE THAT WE THINK IS APPLICABLE AND WHICH ENSURES THAT THAT SORT OF UNILATERALISM HAS GOT -- YOU KNOW, HAS BEEN SORT OF PROMETHEUS HAS BEEN BOUND.
SO I JUST WANT TO NAUGHT ON THE RECORD.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, PAUL.
SPEAKING OF PUTTING THINGS ON THE RECORD, I HAVE AN ONLINE INPUT WHICH HAS COME IN FROM A MAN NAMED JEFF FIELD.
HE RAISES A QUESTION FOR ME.
AND I'LL READ THIS TO YOU.
"MY NAME IS JEFF FIELD.
I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE CHAIRMAN, VINT CERF.
YOU'RE CURRENTLY EMPLOYED BY GOOGLE, WHICH IS, AMONG OTHER THINGS, AN ICANN AN ACCREDITED REGISTRAR.
IN THE RECENT VOTE TAKEN BY THE BOARD TO SETTLE THE LONGTIME DISPUTE BETWEEN ICANN AND VERISIGN, WHICH INCLUDED A SET OF AGREEMENTS, ONE OF WHICH IS A NEW REGISTRY AGREEMENT RELATING TO THE OPERATION OF THE DOT COM REGISTRY, AN AGREEMENT THAT DIRECTLY IMPACTS REGISTRARS, YOU DID NOT ABSTAIN FROM VOTING, REGARDLESS OF THE FACT THAT YOUR "YES" VOTE IN THIS INSTANCE WAS PRESUMABLY DETRIMENTAL TO GOOGLE'S REGISTRAR BUSINESS AND THEREFORE ARGUABLY PROVIDES SOME SORT OF ETHICS COVER.
IF YOU DID NOT FEEL IT APPROPRIATE TO ABSTAIN FROM THIS PARTICULAR VOTE DUE TO YOUR EMPLOYMENT WITH AN ICANN-ACCREDITED REGISTRAR, WHAT SORT OF CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD NEED TO BE PRESENT IN ORDER FOR YOU TO FEEL IT APPROPRIATE TO ABSTAIN FROM FUTURE VOTES ON MATTERS THAT DIRECTLY IMPACT REGISTRARS."
LET'S SEE.
FIRST OBSERVATION IS, GOOGLE IS INDEED AN ACCREDITED REGISTRAR.
SECOND OBSERVATION IS, IT DOESN'T REGISTER ANYTHING.
THIRD OBSERVATION IS, THE REASON IT'S A REGISTRAR IS SO THAT IT CAN GET ACCURATE INFORMATION ABOUT DOMAIN NAMES THAT ARE BEING DELETED.
THE FOURTH OBSERVATION IS, THE PURPOSE FOR THAT IS TO TRY TO REMOVE FROM THE INDEXES THAT GOOGLE CREATES INFORMATION WHICH IS PROBABLY NO LONGER CORRECT BECAUSE ONCE THE DOMAIN NAME TRANSFERS OR EXPIRES, ALL OF THE WEB SITES THAT WERE ASSOCIATED WITH THAT DOMAIN NAME MAY NO LONGER BE REACHABLE, OR, IN FACT, WORST CASE, IF THEY ARE REACHABLE, THEIR CONTENT MAY HAVE CHANGED SIGNIFICANTLY, IN WHICH CASE RESCANNING OF THE -- RECRAWLING OF THE WEB SITES SUPPORTED BY ANY NEW USERS OF THAT DOMAIN NAME IS INDICATED.
IT WAS MY BELIEF, AND I CONSULTED WITH THE CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST COMMITTEE, THAT THIS DIDN'T CONSTITUTE A SIGNIFICANT CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
IN PARTICULAR, THERE IS NO INCOME ASSOCIATED WITH THE REGISTRATION OR WITH THE REGISTRAR -- WITH GOOGLE'S POSITION AS A REGISTRAR, NOR DO I HAVE ANY DIRECT BENEFIT FROM THAT OTHER THAN SIMPLY BEING A PAID EMPLOYEE OF GOOGLE.
IF THE CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST COMMITTEE WISHES TO REVIEW THIS AGAIN, I'LL BE HAPPY TO ASK THEM TO DO SO.
BUT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE, IT WAS NOT CONSIDERED TO BE A MATERIAL CONFLICT.
AND THAT'S MY ANSWER TO THE QUESTION.
SO, SHALL WE GO ON NOW, IF WE CAN, TO REPORTS?
I'M GOING TO -- IT'S NOW 11:20.
WE NOMINALLY WERE SCHEDULED TO GO THROUGH 12:30, INCLUDING SOME ADDITIONAL COMMENTARY FROM THE FLOOR.
I'M PREPARED TO HAVE THIS SESSION GO BEYOND THE 12:30 TIME.
WE'LL HAVE TO LET SOME PEOPLE KNOW THAT THERE MAY BE SOME CONFLICTS AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THAT.
BUT LET'S SEE HOW WE DO IN TERMS OF PACING.
TO GO BACK TO THE REPORTS NOW, THE ASO REPORT WOULD BE NEXT.
AND IF SEBASTIAN BELLAGAMBA IS AVAILABLE, I WOULD INVITE HIM TO MAKE THE ASO REPORT.
I SEE HIM COMING -- OH, IT'S -- RAUL IS GOING TO GIVE THE REPORT INSTEAD.
SO APOLOGIES FOR GETTING THE NAMES WRONG.
DID HE GIVE UP?
OR YOU'RE JUST THERE TO REPLACE HIM?

>>RAUL ECHEBERRIA: HELLO.
THANK YOU, VINT.
AND NO PROBLEM WITH THE CONFUSION.
IN ORDER TO BE CONFUSED WITH MY FRIEND, SEBASTIAN.
THIS IS -- I WILL SPEAK ABOUT THIS -- SORRY.
IT'S OKAY.
I WILL SPEAK QUICKLY ABOUT THE ORGANIZATION OF THE NRO AND THE ASO, AS I WILL GIVE STATUS ON THE INTERNET NUMBER RESOURCE STATISTICS, AND I WILL TELL YOU SOMETHING ABOUT THE POLICY DISCUSSION THAT IS BEING HELD IN THE RIRS.
SO LET ME SPEAK ABOUT THE ORGANIZATION.
LOOK THAT WE ARE SPELLING THE WORD IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LOCAL STANDARD.
THE NRO IS THE ORGANIZATION COMPOSED BY THE FIVE EXISTING RIRS.
IN TOTAL, THE FIVE RIRS SERVE MORE THAN 8,000 NATIONAL REGISTRIES, LOCAL REGISTRIES, AND ISPS WORLDWIDE.
AND DUE TO THE AGREEMENT SIGNED BETWEEN THE NRO AND ICANN IN OCTOBER 2004, THE NRO FULFILLS THE ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITIES AND FUNCTIONS OF THE ICANN ADDRESS SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION.
THE ADDRESS COUNCIL CO EXISTS DUE TO THIS AGREEMENT WITH THE NRO NUMBER COUNCIL.
THIS NUMBER RESOURCE POLICY ADVISORY BOARD.
THIS COUNCIL IS COMPOSED BY 15 MEMBERS, THREE FROM EACH REGION.
AND THOSE THREE MEMBERS FROM EACH REGION, TWO OF THEM ARE ELECTED AT LARGE BY THE COMMUNITY, AND ONE OF THEM IS APPOINTED BY EACH RIR BOARD.
IN THE ADDRESS COUNCIL, ALSO PARTICIPATE OBSERVERS FROM THE RIRS AND FROM ICANN.
THE MEMBERS SERVE FOR THREE YEARS, OF THE ADDRESS COUNCIL SERVE FOR THREE YEARS.
WHAT THOUGH IS ADVISE ICANN BOARD ON I.P. ADDRESSES AND A NUMBER OF RESOURCE-RELATED ISSUES.
SELECT TWO BOARD MEMBERS FOR THE ICANN BOARD, AND SELECT ONE REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ICANN NOMCOM.
THE ADDRESS COUNCIL IS CURRENTLY COMPOSED BY THOSE 15 PERSONS THAT ARE LISTED IN THE SLIDE.
THE CHAIR CURRENTLY IS SEBASTIAN BELLAGAMBA FROM ARGENTINA, WHO IS HERE IN THE ROOM.
CURRENTLY, THE TWO BOARD MEMBERS OF ICANN THAT HAS BEEN APPOINTED BY THE ADDRESS SUPPORTING ORGANIZATION ADDRESS COUNCIL ARE RAIMUNDO BECA, WHO WILL SERVE ON THE ICANN BOARD UNTIL MAY OF 2007, AND MOUHAMET DIOP, WHO WILL SERVE UNTIL JUNE 2006.
THE ADDRESS COUNCIL, THE ACTIVITIES THAT THE ADDRESS COUNCIL ARE PERFORMING AT THIS MOMENT ARE APPRISING ICANN STAFF OF GLOBAL POLICY PROPOSAL STATUS; INTERNAL PROCESSES; AND THE SELECTION OF ICANN BOARD MEMBER.
AT THIS MOMENT, THE ADDRESS COUNCIL IS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PROCESS OF SELECTING THE PERSON THAT WILL SERVE ON THE ICANN BOARD SINCE JUNE 2006 FOR THE TERM OF THREE YEARS, REPLACING MOUHAMET DIOP.
THE ADDRESS COUNCIL MEETS MONTHLY BY TELEPHONE AND TWICE A YEAR FACE-TO-FACE MEETING.
THIS YEAR, THE FACE-TO-FACE MEETING WILL BE HELD IN ISTANBUL, VERY SOON, IN THE LAST WEEK OF APRIL, DURING THE RIPE 52 MEETING; AND THE SECOND MEETING WILL BE HELD IN DECEMBER 2006 IN SAO PAULO, TOGETHER WITH THE ICANN MEETING.
THIS IS SOME INFORMATION ABOUT THE ALLOCATION OF IP ADDRESSES, UPDATED TO THE END OF 2005.
AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, THE NUMBER OF SLASH 8S, IPV4 SLASH 8S THAT HAVE BEEN ALLOCATED TO EACH RIR, AND THE NUMBER OF SLASH 8S THAT ARE STILL AVAILABLE IN THE CENTRAL POOL AND ALSO THE NUMBER OF SLASH 8S THAT ARE BEING RESERVED FOR EXPERIMENTAL USES OR FOR MULTICAST USES.
THIS GRAPH SHOWS THE IPV4 ALLOCATION FROM THE RIRS TO LIRS AND ISPS. AND IT'S YEAR-BY-YEAR, 2006.
WHILE THE TIME IS NOT ENOUGH TO COMMENT VERY MUCH ABOUT THE GRAPHICS AND TO SPEAK ABOUT THE NUMBERS, THE PRESENTATION WILL BE AVAILABLE ON THE ICANN WEB SITE, I THINK, AND ALL THIS INFORMATION IS ALSO AVAILABLE ON THE NRO WEB SITE.
THIS IS THE OTHER WAY TO SEE THE IPV4, THE NUMBER OF IPV4 ALLOCATIONS MADE -- SORRY, THE -- THE IPV4 ALLOCATIONS MADE FROM THE RIRS TO THE ISPS IN THE SAME PERIOD.
THIS IS THE EVOLUTION OF THE ASSIGNMENTS OF AUTONOMOUS SYSTEM NUMBERS.
AND WHAT IS PROBABLY -- ONE OF THE THINGS PEOPLE ARE MORE INTERESTED IN, THE IPV6 ALLOCATIONS IN TERMS OF THE NUMBER OF IPV6 ADDRESSES ALLOCATED FROM THE IANA TO RIRS IN NUMBER OF SLASH 23S.
THIS IS THE EVOLUTION OF THE NUMBER -- THE QUANTITY OF IPV6 ALLOCATIONS MADE BY THE RIRS TO THE ISPS AND RIRS.
SEEN ALSO IN THIS GRAPH IN A DIFFERENT WAY.
YOU CAN SEE HERE THE PRESENTATION OF THE NUMBER OF ALLOCATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE BY EACH RIR IN THE REGION.
ALL THIS INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE IN DIFFERENT STATISTICS FILES AVAILABLE ON THE RIRS' WEB SITES, AND ALSO THERE IS INFORMATION ABOUT STATISTICS ON THE IANA WEB SITE.
THE RIR POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, WHICH PREDATES ICANN POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, IS OPEN, TRANSPARENT, BOTTOM-UP PROCESS.
IT IS -- IT'S A WAY -- IT WORKS STARTING WITH THE IDENTIFICATION OF NEEDS THROUGH THE DISCUSSION, AS WE GET CONSENSUS, AND THEN WHEN THE COMMUNITY GETS CONSENSUS, THE POLICIES ARE IMPLEMENTED AND EVALUATED AGAIN WHAT CAN PRODUCE NEW NEEDS THAT STARTS AGAIN THE PROCESS.
THIS IS THE GLOBAL POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, THE FINAL IN THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING THAT HAS BEEN SIGNED BETWEEN THE NRO AND ICANN.
AND IT'S A WAY TO INTEGRATE THE RIRS' POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS WITH THE ICANN POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.
THEN THE PROPOSALS ARE DISCUSSED IN ALL THE COMMUNITIES, AND IF THE AGREEMENT IS REACHED, THE CONSENSUS IS REACHED IN ALL THE REGIONS, THEN IT IS PASSED TO THE ADDRESS COUNCIL, WHO IS THE BODY THAT HELPS TO CHECK THAT THE AGREEMENTS HAVE BEEN REACHED IN ALL THE REGIONS ACCORDING WITH EACH POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, AND IT'S THE RESPONSIBILITY TO SUBMIT THE PROPOSAL TO THE ICANN BOARD.
THIS IS THE NEXT ROUND OF MEETINGS THAT WILL BE HELD IN EACH REGION.
THE NEXT MEETING WILL BE HELD IN TWO WEEKS.
IN MONTREAL IS OUR MEETING.
LATER, WE WILL HAVE, AT THE END OF APRIL, THE RIPE NCC MEETING IN ISTANBUL; IN MAY, WE WILL HAVE THE AFRINIC MEETING IN NAIROBI; AND THE LACNIC MEETING IN GUATEMALA CITY; AND LATER, IN SEPTEMBER, WE WILL HAVE THE SECOND MEETING OF APNIC, IN TAIWAN.
MANY THINGS ARE BEING DISCUSSED CURRENTLY IN EACH REGION, AND IT SHOWS WHAT IS THE STATUS OF THE DISCUSSIONS THAT ARE BEING HELD IN EACH REGION REGARDING IPV4 POLICIES.
I WOULD NOT SPEAK MORE ABOUT IT, BUT THE INFORMATION IS, AS I SAID BEFORE, AVAILABLE.
THERE IS ALREADY SOME PROPOSAL THAT ARE BEING DISCUSSED REGARDING IPV6. AND OTHER DISCUSSIONS THAT ARE MORE GENERAL. FOR EXAMPLE, THE ADOPTION OF THE NEW FORM OF ASN BASED IN 4 BYTES.
WE ARE CURRENTLY DISCUSSING A GLOBAL POLICY PROPOSAL REGARDING THE ALLOCATIONS OF IPV6 FROM IANA TO THE RIRS.
THIS IS THE STATUS OF THE PROCESS.
THE PROPOSAL HAS ALREADY BEEN ADOPTED IN THREE REGIONS. IN THE APNIC, ARIN, LACNIC REGIONS.
IT IS STILL UNDER DISCUSSION IN AFRINIC, RIPE NCC REGIONS.
SO WE EXPECT TO HAVE THE PROCESS FINISHED AT THE RIRS LEVEL IN THE THIRD QUARTER OF THIS YEAR.
SO THIS IS THE -- ALL THE DISCUSSION ABOUT POLICIES, AND ALL THE INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE IN THE RIR WEB SITES.
THERE ARE ALSO SOME INTERESTING LINKS THAT YOU CAN ACCESS. THE ASO, NRO, AND THE RIR LINKS.
THAT'S ALL. BEFORE FINISHING I WOULD LIKE TO EXPRESS ALSO THE NRO INTEREST IN BECOMING PART OF THE STRATEGIC PRESIDENT'S COMMITTEE THAT HAS BEEN INFORMED THIS MORNING.
I DIDN'T WANT TO GO TO THE MIKE BECAUSE I COULD DO THAT LATER. BUT I WILL TAKE ADVANTAGE AT THIS MOMENT TO EXPRESS OUR WILLINGNESS ALSO TO BECOME INVOLVED WITH THIS COMMITTEE.
ONLY FOR THE RECORDS, I THINK THAT THE ABSOLUTE RECORD OF ATTENDANCE IN ICANN MEETINGS IS IN THE HANDS OF OUR COLLEAGUE FROM LACNIC AND THE ADDRESS COUNCIL, HARTMUT GLASER, WHO HAS ATTENDED 25 OF 25 MEETINGS.
AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH. KIA ORA.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. KIA ORA.
[ APPLAUSE ]

>>VINT CERF: BEFORE YOU STEP DOWN, ONE THING I JUST WANT YOU TO PLEASE TAKE BACK TO THE NRO ON MY BEHALF, SORT OF A GROWING CONCERN ABOUT THE RATE AT WHICH IPV6 ADDRESSES ARE BEING ALLOCATED.
MY IMPRESSION IS WE MAY BE CONSUMING THESE AT MUCH -- A MUCH MORE RAPID PACE THAN WE EVER DID THE IPV4 ADDRESSES. AND AS A CONSEQUENCE, I HOPE SOMEONE IS LOOKING CAREFULLY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE A GOOD POLICY FOR THE SIZE OF ADDRESSES THAT ARE ASSIGNED TO INDIVIDUAL USERS.

>>RAUL ECHEBERRIA: I THINK THIS ISSUE, THIS CONCERN YOU ARE ADDRESSING HAS MANY DIFFERENT PARTS. SOME OF THEM SHOULD BE ADDRESSED AT THE IETF LEVEL BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS IN IETF THAT ARE BEING REVISED AT THIS MOMENT.
OTHER PARTS ARE CONCERNED IN POLICIES, AND MANY PROPOSALS THAT ARE BEING DISCUSSED AT THIS MOMENT IN DIFFERENT REGIONS. AND WHAT I CAN SAY IS THAT THE PEOPLE FROM THE ADDRESSING COMMUNITY WITH ONE EYE OR TWO EYES IN THIS ISSUE. MY OPINION IS THAT WE WILL NOT MAKE THE MISTAKE THAT HAVE BEEN MADE BY OTHERS IN THE PAST REGARDING IPV4. AND I THINK THAT IT WILL WORK VERY WELL.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, RAUL.
THOMAS HAD HIS HAND UP, PROBABLY TO EXPLAIN TO ME THAT I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND SOMETHING. GO AHEAD, THOMAS.

>>THOMAS NARTEN: NO, VINT. I THINK YOUR CONCERN IS VALID. AND WHAT I'LL SAY TO THAT IS IN THE REGISTRY COMMUNITIES TODAY, THIS HAS BEEN A TOPIC THAT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED FOR ALMOST A YEAR NOW, AND THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT PROPOSALS THAT ARE BEING DISCUSSED IN THE VARIOUS REGIONS.
ONE THAT SEEMS TO HAVE A LOT OF SUPPORT AND IS GOING THROUGH THE FINAL STEPS OF GETTING THE APPROVAL, AND THE SECOND ONE IS STILL BEING ACTIVELY DISCOVERED OR DISCUSSED.
SO I THINK THERE ARE PEOPLE CONCERNED ABOUT IT AND POLICY WORK IS GOING ON IN THE REGISTRY COMMUNITY TO ADDRESS THAT.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, THOMAS. I AM RELIEVED TO HEAR IT.

>>RAUL ECHEBERRIA: YES. THE PROPOSAL TO CHANGE THE RATE THAT IS USED FOR THE RADIO, FOR ANALYZING THE NEEDS OF ADDITIONAL ALLOCATIONS OF IPV6 IS BEING REVISED IN DIFFERENT REGIONS, AND IT HAS ALSO BEEN ADOPTED IN SOME OF THE REGIONS.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU, RAUL MANY.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

>>RAUL ECHEBERRIA: THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: THE NEXT REPORT COMES FROM THE GOVERNMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE, AND SHARIL TARMIZI IS ITS CHAIR. SO HE IS COMING TO MAKE THAT REPORT.

>>SHARIL TARMIZI: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE. MY NAME IS SHARIL TARMIZI, AND I AM WITH THE GOVERNMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE. THE GOVERNMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF ICANN MET IN WELLINGTON FROM THE 24TH OF MARCH TO THE 28TH OF MARCH.
THE PARTICIPATING GAC MEMBERS COMPRISE REPRESENTATIVES FROM 33 MEMBERS AND THREE OBSERVERS. THE GAC EXPRESSES WARM THANKS TO THE GOVERNMENT OF NEW ZEALAND AND THE ORGANIZERS FOR HOSTING THE MEETING IN WELLINGTON.
ON THE ISSUE OF GAC EVOLUTION, IN PARTICULAR THE GAC INTERNAL WORK PLAN, THE GAC DISCUSSED PRIORITY AREAS FOR THE FUTURE OF THE GAC; IN PARTICULAR, THE IMMEDIATE TRANSITION OF THE GAC SECRETARIAT.
THEY RECOGNIZE THE NEED TO TAKE URGENT STEPS TO PROVIDE AN IMMEDIATE SOLUTION TO THE TRANSITION OF THE GAC SECRETARIAT FROM THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION. THE GAC WELCOMES THE GENEROUS PROPOSAL FROM THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND THE OFFER FROM ICANN FOR THE SUPPORT OF THE GAC SECRETARIAT FUNCTIONS, AND IT AGREES TO AN IMMEDIATE TRANSITIONAL SOLUTION TO TRANSFER THE CORE FUNCTIONS OF THE GAC SECRETARIAT FROM THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, WHICH SHALL OCCUR NO LATER THAN 30TH JUNE 2006.
THE GAC WILL CONTINUE TO EXPLORE HOW TO EXTEND THE GAC MEMBERSHIP, DEVELOP OUTREACH, AND BUILD CAPACITY, AND MORE GENERALLY WIDEN INTERNATIONAL PARTICIPATION AND IMPROVE THE WAY IT ADDRESSES PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES IN A MORE EFFECTIVE MANNER IN RELATION TO THE ICANN FRAMEWORK, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE OUTCOME OF THE WSIS. THE GAC WILL CONTINUE TO EXPLORE THE MODALITIES FOR PERMANENT SOLUTION AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SUSTAINABLE FUNDING MECHANISM.
ON INTERNATIONALIZATION AND CAPACITY BUILDING OF THE GAC, THE GAC RECOGNIZES THE NEED TO ENHANCE ITS CURRENT OUTREACH TO NONMEMBER GOVERNMENTS TO INCREASE AWARENESS OF ITS WORK. IT ALSO ACKNOWLEDGED ITS ROLE IN BUILDING CAPACITY AMONG DEVELOPING COUNTRY NONMEMBERS AND NEW MEMBERS ON HOW THE GAC'S ACTIVITY COULD BE OF VALUE TO THEM.
IN THIS REGARD, THE GAC HAS IDENTIFIED INITIAL AREAS OF FOCUS AND WILL FURTHER CONSIDER THESE AREAS, INCLUDING HOW SUCH ACTIVITIES WILL BE FUNDED.
THE GAC WELCOMES AND SUPPORTS THE OFFER BY IRAN TO ORGANIZE A REGIONAL WORKSHOP ON THE GAC AS A GOOD FIRST STEP IN ITS OUTREACH EFFORTS.
IN RELATION TO THE GAC-ICANN BOARD COOPERATION, THE GAC WELCOMED THE INAUGURAL MEETING OF THE JOINT WORKING GROUP OF THE GAC AND THE ICANN BOARD. THE JOINT WORKING GROUP WILL BE LED BY ALEJANDRO PISANTY ON BEHALF OF THE ICANN BOARD AND JANIS KARKLINS, OUR DELEGATE FROM LATVIA, ON BEHALF OF THE GAC.
IT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED IN THE IMMEDIATE TERM, WHICH IS FROM WELLINGTON TO MARRAKESH, IT WILL BE IMPORTANT TO IMPROVE THE TIMELINESS AND EFFICIENCY OF COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN THE GAC AND THE ICANN BOARD.
IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THE OBJECTIVES OF ENHANCED COOPERATION WITHIN THE ICANN CONTEXT, THE GAC ACKNOWLEDGES THERE IS A NEED FOR THE GAC TO CONSIDER CHANGES IN ITS WORKING METHODS TO ENABLE IT TO INTERACT MORE ROUTINELY WITH THE ICANN BOARD AND THE COMMUNITY.
BEYOND THIS IT WAS AGREED THAT THE WORKING GROUP SHOULD, AS A LONGER TERM ISSUE, FOCUS ON THE ROLE OF THE GAC VIS-A-VIS ICANN, AND THE ICANN BOARD, AND IT SHOULD LEAD TO THE CREATION OF A BETTER ENVIRONMENT THAT FACILITATES THE DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICATION OF PUBLIC POLICY PRINCIPLES.
IN PARTICULAR, THE GAC HAS IDENTIFIED THE FOLLOWING ISSUES AS KEY PRIORITY AREAS FOR EARLY ENGAGEMENTS. NAMELY CCTLDS, IDNS, IPV6, AND IP ADDRESSING RESOURCE ALLOCATION, DEVELOPMENT AND CREATION OF POLICIES AND GTLDS, AND WHOIS.
ON THE NEXT ITEM, MR. CHAIRMAN, ON NEW TLDS, IN PARTICULAR, TRIPLE-X.
THE GAC APPRECIATES THE EFFORTS OF ICANN TO CLARIFY THE PROCESS BY WHICH THE BOARD APPROVED THE ENTRY INTO NEGOTIATIONS BY ICANN STAFF AND ICM REGISTRY, THE APPLICANT FOR THE TRIPLE-X SPONSORED TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS AS REFLECTED IN THE ICANN'S PRESIDENT'S LETTER TO THE GAC CHAIR ON FEBRUARY 11TH, 2006.
HOWEVER, THE GAC DOES NOT BELIEVE THE FEBRUARY 11TH LETTER PROVIDES SUFFICIENT DETAIL REGARDING THE RATIONALE FOR THE BOARD DETERMINATION THAT THE APPLICATION HAD OVERCOME THE DEFICIENCIES IN THE NOTED IN THE EVALUATION REPORT. THE GAC WILL REQUEST A WRITTEN EXPLANATION OF THE BOARD DECISION, PARTICULARLY WITH REGARD TO THE SPONSORED COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC INTEREST CRITERIA OUTLINED IN THE SPONSORED TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN SELECTION CRITERIA.
IN ITS APPLICATION, SUPPORTING MATERIALS AND PRESENTATIONS TO THE GAC IN NOVEMBER 2005, ICM REGISTRY PROMISED A RANGE OF PUBLIC INTEREST BENEFITS AS PART OF ITS BID TO OPERATE THE TRIPLE-X DOMAIN. TO THE GAC'S KNOWLEDGE, THESE UNDERTAKINGS HAVE NOT YET BEEN INCLUDED AS ICM OBLIGATIONS IN THE PROPOSED TRIPLE-X REGISTRY AGREEMENT NEGOTIATED WITH ICANN.
THE PUBLIC POLICY ASPECT IDENTIFIED BY MEMBERS OF THE GAC INCLUDE THE DEGREE TO WHICH THE TRIPLE-X APPLICATION WOULD TAKE APPROPRIATE MEASURES TO RESTRICT ACCESS TO ILLEGAL AND OFFENSIVE CONTENT, SUPPORT THE DEVELOPMENT OF TOOLS AND PROGRAMS TO PROTECT VULNERABLE MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY. THREE, MAINTAIN ACCURATE DETAILS OF REGISTRANTS AND ASSIST LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES TO IDENTIFY AND CONTACT THE OWNERS OF PARTICULAR WEB SITES, IF NEED BE. AND FOUR, ACT TO ENSURE THE PROTECTION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND TRADEMARK RIGHTS, PERSONAL NAMES, COUNTRY NAMES OF HISTORICAL, CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE, AND NAMES OF GEOGRAPHIC IDENTIFIERS DRAWING ON BEST PRACTICES IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF REGISTRATION AND ELIGIBILITY RULES.
WITHOUT IN ANY WAY IMPLYING AN ENDORSEMENT OF THE ICM APPLICATION, THE GAC WOULD REQUEST CONFIRMATION FROM THE BOARD THAT ANY CONTRACT CURRENTLY UNDER NEGOTIATION BETWEEN ICANN AND ICM REGISTRY WOULD INCLUDE ENFORCEABLE PROVISIONS COVERING ALL OF ICM REGISTRY COMMITMENTS AND SUCH INFORMATION ON THE PROPOSED CONTRACTS BE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE COUNTRIES THROUGH THE GAC. NEVERTHELESS, WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, SEVERAL MEMBERS OF THE GAC ARE EMPHATICALLY OPPOSE FROM A PUBLIC POLICY PERSPECTIVE TO THE INTRODUCTION OF THE TRIPLE-X STLD.
ON GNSO RELATED ISSUES, THE GNSO WORKING GROUP HELD AN INTERNAL SESSION TO REVIEW ONGOING WORK PROJECTS RELATED TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF PUBLIC POLICY PRINCIPLES APPLICABLE TO THE INTRODUCTION OF NEW GTLDS AND WHOIS DATA.
IN RECOGNITION OF THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES UNDERWAY IN THE GNSO ON THESE SUBJECTS, THE GNSO WORKING GROUP ALSO HELD A MEETING OF THE GNSO COUNCIL. THE JOINT SESSION PROVIDED A CONSTRUCTIVE OPPORTUNITY TO EXCHANGE STATUS UPDATES AND INFORMATION, AND THE GAC WELCOMES THE INTEREST OF THE GNSO COUNCIL IN SCHEDULING A JOINT SESSION DURING THE NEXT ICANN MEETING IN MARRAKESH.
ON THE ICANN-VERISIGN AGREEMENT, SOME GAC MEMBERS BELIEVE THAT THE ICANN BOARD SHOULD ENSURE THAT THE REASONS FOR ITS DECISIONS ARE PROPERLY UNDERSTOOD AND ACCEPTED BY THE ICANN COMMUNITY. IN PARTICULAR, HOW IT CONTRIBUTES TO ICANN'S MISSIONS AND VALUES AS IDENTIFIED IN ITS DRAFT STRATEGY PLAN JULY 2006 TO JUNE 2009.
ON IANA POLICIES AND PROCESSES, THE GAC WELCOMES ICANN'S REPORT ON ITS PROGRESS IN REDUCING DELAYS IN THE IANA FUNCTION.
WE ASK IANA TO PUBLISH ITS POLICIES AND PROCESSES FOR OBEYING THE RULE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
FINALLY, MR. CHAIRMAN, ON OTHER MATTERS, WE HAD AN ELECTION OF VICE CHAIRS HERE, IN LIGHT OF THE VACANCIES OF THE TWO VICE-CHAIRMANSHIPS. THE GAC IS PLEASED TO ANNOUNCE THE INTRODUCTION OF TWO AD INTERIM VICE CHAIRS. THE TWO NEW AD INTERIM VICE CHAIRS ARE PANKAJ AGRAWALA FROM INDIA AND FRANK MARCH FROM NEW ZEALAND.
THE GAC WARMLY THANKS ALL THOSE AMONG THE ICANN COMMUNITY WHO CONTRIBUTED TO THE DIALOGUE WITH THE GAC IN WELLINGTON. THE GAC EXPRESSES ITS APPRECIATION AND THANKS TO THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR PROVIDING THE GAC SECRETARIAT SINCE NOVEMBER 2002.
THE NEXT GAC MEETING WILL BE DURING THE ICANN MARRAKESH MEETING, END OF JUNE, 2006.
WITH THAT, MR. CHAIRMAN, I END MY REPORT. THANK YOU.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SHARIL. I CAN CONFIRM FOR YOU THAT THE BOARD WILL TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE ELEMENTS OF ITS COMMUNIQUE IN TERMS OF ITS FUTURE WORK.
PETER.

>>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: YES, THANKS, SHARIL, FOR THAT. JUST THAT PART IN YOUR REPORT THAT SAYS SEVERAL MEMBERS OF THE GAC ARE ADAMANTLY OPPOSED FOR POLICY REASONS TO THE INTRODUCTION OF NEW GTLDS, CAN YOU JUST GIVE US AN INDICATION OF WHAT THE PUBLIC POLICY ASPECTS THAT CONCERN THEM ARE, AND ARE THEY GOING TO MAKE THOSE PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES -- ARE THEY GOING TO INCLUDE THEM IN THE GNSO'S CURRENT PDP ON THE INTRODUCTION OF NEW GTLDS?

>>SHARIL TARMIZI: THANK YOU, PETER.
WITH RESPECT TO YOUR SPECIFIC QUESTION ON THAT ISSUE, AS YOU CAN WELL APPRECIATE, THERE IS A DIVERSE RANGE OF VIEWS AMONGST GAC MEMBERS ON THE INTRODUCTION OF STLDS. IN PARTICULAR, STLDS WHICH HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE TYPE OF APPLICATION IT'S USED FOR.
WITHOUT WANTING TO PREJUDGE THE OUTCOME, WHAT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED IS THAT THESE ARE PART OF THE ITEMS THAT WE WILL TAKE UP IN THE DISCUSSION OF THE GNSO COUNCIL ON THE INTRODUCTION OF NEW GTLDS.
BUT WE'RE STILL AT A VERY EARLY STAGE INSOFAR AS THE ACTUAL ITEMS ARE CONCERNED.

>>VINT CERF: ALEX, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION?

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: SHARIL, THANK YOU FOR THIS REPORT AND IT TRULY REFLECTS THE DIVERSITY AND COMPLEXITY OF THE ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH YOUR ABLE LEADERSHIP IS EXERTED IN THE GAC.
I AM TAKING NOTE FOR THE WORK THAT I HAVE TO DO TOGETHER WITH REPRESENTATION OF THE GAC. ALSO VERY GLAD TO SEE THAT AMBASSADOR JANIS KARKLINS HAS BEEN DESIGNATED BY THE GAC FOR THIS TASK.
FOR THAT, I AM TAKING NOTE OF A VERY PARTICULAR STATEMENT HERE, AND I HOPE YOU CAN, IN A GIVEN TIME FRAME, TELL US MORE ABOUT THIS.
WHEN REFERRING TO TRIPLE-X, THERE'S A PARAGRAPH THAT SAYS THE PUBLIC POLICY ASPECTS IDENTIFIED BY MEMBERS OF THE GAC INCLUDE THE DEGREE TO WHICH .XXX APPLICATION WOULD -- AND IT'S THE FIRST BULLET THERE, IT SAYS "TAKE APPROPRIATE MEASURES TO RESTRICT ACCESS TO LEGAL AND OFFENSIVE CONTENT."
FOR THE FUTURE WORK OF THIS BOARD, AND FOR THE PRIVATE SOCIAL AND GOVERNMENTAL COLLABORATION THAT ICANN HAS, IT WILL BE EXTREMELY INTERESTING TO KNOW WHAT THE GAC THINKS IS THE JURISDICTION IN WHICH ILLEGAL AND OFFENSIVE CONTENT ARE DEFINED.
I FIND IT VERY HARD TO APPROACH THIS LINE, KNOWING HOW DIFFERENT THE CONTENT THAT'S INTENDED FOR ADULTS UNDER .XXX IS CLASSIFIED AS ILLEGAL AND OFFENSIVE, EVEN IN NEIGHBORING COUNTRIES WITH VERY SIMILAR CULTURES.
AND IT'S PROBABLY SETTING AN IMPOSSIBLE TASK FOR THIS BOARD TO JUDGE ON HOW ICM, WHICH IS THE PROPOSER OF THIS THING, CAN ACHIEVE THIS GOAL IN SUCH AN OPEN AND BROAD STATEMENT.

>>SHARIL TARMIZI: WELL, ALEX, AS YOU HAD POINTED OUT, THERE IS DIVERSITY IN VIEWS ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE.
HOWEVER, WHAT I'D LIKE TO SAY IS THAT IN TRYING TO PROGRESS THIS FORWARD, I'M TRYING TO MAKE AVAILABLE TO THE BOARD THE ACTUAL AND EXACT STATEMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE AND THE INTERVENTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE VARIOUS DELEGATIONS IN THEIR DISCUSSIONS ON THIS ISSUE.
THE VIEWS ARE, OF COURSE, VERY DIVERSE. I WILL ADMIT THERE'S NO UNANIMITY HERE EXCEPT INSOFAR AS THE AREAS WHERE WE HAVE EXPRESSED THOSE CONCERNS, THE -- THE -- YOU WILL ALSO APPRECIATE, I THINK, THAT THE GAC COLLEAGUES COME FROM DIFFERENT LEGAL JURISDICTIONS, DIFFERENT LEGAL ENVIRONMENTS, DIFFERENT VALUE PRINCIPLES AS WELL AS DIFFERENT CONSTITUTIONAL VALUES.
SO THAT DIVERSITY IS THERE BUT I AM STILL WAITING COMMUNICATION FROM INDIVIDUAL GAC COLLEAGUES AS TO WHETHER I CAN MAKE THEIR COMMENTS TO THE BOARD.

>>VINT CERF: MOUHAMET.

>>MOUHAMET DIOP: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, VINT. I REALLY APPRECIATE THE PAPER THAT HAVE BEEN DELIVERED BY THE GAC REGARDING THE EVOLUTION IN TERMS OF HOW THEY CAN IMPROVE THE PARTICIPATION OF OTHER REGION. BUT ESPECIALLY I WANT TO COME BACK ON ONE OF THE PROPOSAL THEY HAVE TO ORGANIZE REGIONAL WORKSHOP.
AND AT THAT POINT, I JUST WANT TO AVOID ONE THING.
ONE POINT IS POSITIVE, THE OTHER ONE IS TO AVOID THIS SITUATION TO BECOME SOMETHING NOT REALLY CORRELATED TO THE ICANN ACTIVITY.
GAC IS NOT THE U.N. GAC IS NOT ITU. GAC IS PART OF ICANN. AND PEOPLE WHO WERE PARTICIPATING TO THE GAC ACTIVITY ARE REALLY MUCH WILLING TO GET TECHNICAL WORKSHOPS AND REALLY KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE DIFFERENT CONSTITUENCIES AND THE DIFFERENT S.O.
SO I ECHO THE WILLINGNESS OF THE GAC TO ORGANIZE REGIONAL WORKSHOP, BUT AT THE SAME TIME I RECOMMEND STRONGLY THAT THIS ACTIVITY WILL BE JOINTLY ORGANIZED WITH THE OTHER SOS, LIKE THE REGIONAL INTERNET REGISTRY IN THE REGION AND THE CC IN THE REGION, SO WE WILL HAVE SOMETHING REALLY USEFUL IN TERM OF ICANN AS A GLOBAL AND NOT THIS TYPE OF REGIONAL WORKSHOP BECOME JUST LIKE A REGIONAL POLICY MEETING FOR GAC MEMBERS.
AND I REALLY -- AND I REALLY URGE AT THAT POINT THAT THIS COORDINATION AND THIS COOPERATION BETWEEN ICANN AND THE GAC, IF REALLY GAC HAVE, LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, NEXT IN IRAN THEY HELP PARTICIPATE ORGANIZE WORKSHOP FOR GAC MEMBERS, I THINK THIS HAS TO BE JOINTLY ORGANIZED WITH ICANN AND WITH A REGIONAL COMPONENT OF ICANN IN ORDER TO MAKE IT REALLY USEFUL AS A WHOLE COMMUNITY AND NOT ONLY AS A GOVERNMENTAL DISCUSSION ABOUT THE POLICY ISSUES.

>>SHARIL TARMIZI: MR. CHAIRMAN, IF I MAY JUST RESPOND TO THAT.
MOUHAMET, THERE'S NO DISAGREEMENT THERE. IT IS NOT INTENDED TO SORT OF HAVE A SEPARATE SESSION.
BUT IF I CAN MAKE THIS ONE POINT. WHEN WE INTERACT WITH MANY OF OUR NEW DELEGATION MEMBERS WHO COME, I SAY THIS JOKINGLY, BUT IT HAS A SERIOUS ELEMENT BEHIND THIS. THERE'S SUCH A THING AS TECHNICAL SPEAK, AND THEN THERE'S SUCH A THING AS NORMAL SPEAK, AND THERE'S SUCH A THING AS GOVERNMENT SPEAK.
NOW, AT THE MOMENT, THE GOVERNMENT PEOPLE HAVE A HUGE DIFFICULTY TRYING TO UNDERSTAND ALL THE TECHNICAL SPEAK THAT GOES AROUND IN THE ICANN CONTEXT. I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE A BIT MORE NORMAL SPEAK IN SOME AREAS SO A BETTER UNDERSTANDING CAN OCCUR.
WE DO NOT NECESSARILY WANT TO SLOW DOWN ICANN'S PROGRESS AND THE OTHER COMMUNITIES' PROGRESS, BUT WE ALSO REALIZE THAT WE NEED TO CATCH UP.
NOW, WHY WE SUGGESTED THIS WORKSHOP IN TEHRAN, OF COURSE WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF ICANN AND EVERYONE ELSE IN THE COMMUNITY, IS THAT WE WANTED TO FOCUS MORE ON THE GOVERNMENT TYPE ISSUES THAT MAY COME UP IN THE DISCUSSION.
YOU WILL ALSO APPRECIATE THAT GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS ARE, BY NATURE, SWITCHABLE OR CAN BE TRANSFERRED.
SO IT'S TRYING TO -- UNLIKE SOME OF YOU, I HEARD JUST NOW, YOU HAVE BEEN HERE PERFECT ATTENDANCE RECORDS OF 25 MEETINGS, 24 MEETINGS, 22 MEETINGS.
I HAVE OFFICIALS FROM CERTAIN GOVERNMENTS WHO SWAP EVERY FOUR MEETINGS. SO THEY DON'T EVEN MAKE IT BEYOND THAT YEAR CYCLE BECAUSE THEY GET TRANSFERRED JUST ON THEIR OWN DOMESTIC ARRANGEMENTS.
SO WE HAVE A CHALLENGE. THERE'S A CAPACITY BUILDING ISSUE THAT WE ARE TRYING TO ADDRESS HERE IN THE GAC AND ALSO TRYING TO REACH OUT TO THOSE GOVERNMENTS WHO ARE NOT YET IN THE GAC.
SO WE ARE TRYING TO FIND A BALANCE. WE DON'T WANT TO SLOW YOU DOWN, BUT AT THE SAME TIME IF WE DON'T CATCH UP AND DON'T UNDERSTAND THE ISSUES, THEN SOMETIMES PEOPLE MAY NOT MAKE NECESSARILY THE BEST ADVICE BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT WELL INTO THE ISSUES.
SO I TAKE YOUR POINT VERY WELL, MOUHAMET. PERHAPS THIS IS ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT IN ALEX'S COMMITTEE TOGETHER WITH AMBASSADOR KARKLINS THAT WE WILL FIND A WAY TO MANAGE THESE TWO DIFFERENT EXPECTATIONS AND TIME LINES.

>>VINT CERF: I SEE MOUHAMET HAS A REPLY. GO AHEAD, MOUHAMET.

>>MOUHAMET DIOP: THANK YOU, VINT, AGAIN. I JUST WANT TO SAY IF ICANN IS ABLE TO HAVE ON THE SAME TABLE MIKE PALAGE, PETER DENGATE THRUSH, AND OUR ENGINEERS, VINT AND OTHERS, TALKING AND COMING TO AN AGREEMENT, I DON'T SEE ANYTHING THAT WAS IMPOSSIBLE REGARDING THE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS.
SO I THINK REALLY, WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME YESTERDAY TALKING ABOUT THE COMMUNICATION STUFF. AND I THINK PAUL TWOMEY HAVE A HUGE AMOUNT OF PROCESS TO PUT IN PLACE TO HELP GET MORE TOOLS AVAILABLE FOR COMMUNICATION REGARDING ALL THE TECHNICAL ISSUES, BECAUSE I THINK THAT PEOPLE NEED IT. AND I THINK THAT THIS TYPE OF REGIONAL WORKSHOP IS REALLY A GOOD ENVIRONMENT TO MAKE THE TEST OF THESE TYPE OF TOOLS. BECAUSE IF WE, INSIDE OF ICANN, ARE NOT ABLE TO UNDERSTAND THE TECHNICAL ISSUE, WHAT ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE OUTSIDE OF THESE COMMUNITIES? THANKS.

>>VINT CERF: PAUL AND THEN ALEX.

>>PAUL TWOMEY: THANK YOU, MOUHAMET.
CAN I JUST REINFORCE WHAT I HAVE HEARD ALSO ON THE SAME LINES.
WE WERE AT SOME FUNCTION LAST NIGHT WITH PACIFIC ISLAND FOREIGN MINISTERS OF COMMUNICATIONS, AND THEY MADE EXACTLY THE SAME POINT IN CONVERSATION ABOUT THE REGIONAL DIALOGUE AND DISCUSSION BEING A KEY WAY TO HELP ADDRESS THOSE COMMUNICATION NEEDS. SO I JUST WANTED TO REINFORCE, NOT ONLY HAVE YOU BEEN SAYING THAT ON A REGULAR BASIS BUT IT'S SOMETHING WE HAVE EVEN HEARD HERE IN NEW ZEALAND.

>>VINT CERF: I'M SURE SHARIL WOULD LIKE TO ESCAPE FROM HIS POSITION.
I AM GOING TO MAKE ONE OTHER REMARK, SHARIL. IT HAS TO DO WITH THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN A DOMAIN NAME AND ANY CONTENT THAT MIGHT BE ASSOCIATED NOT WITH THE NAME ITSELF BUT WITH ITS USE IN COMMUNICATIONS. DOMAIN NAMES CAN BE USED AS IDENTIFIERS FOR WEB SITES. THEY CAN BE USED AS A WAY OF REACHING E-MAIL. IT CAN BE USED IN A VARIETY OF WAYS.
IF THE -- SOME IF NOT ALL OF THE MEMBERS OF THE GAC ARE CONCERNED ABOUT CONTENT AND CONTENT CONSTRAINTS, AND IF BY THIS THEY MEAN NOT THE NAMES THEMSELVES BUT CONTENT ON THE NETWORK THAT SOMEHOW USES THE NAMES TO CONVEY THAT INFORMATION, THAT CONTENT, IT STRIKES ME THAT THE ONLY ENFORCEABLE WAY TO DEAL WITH THAT IS GOING TO HAVE TO BE LOCAL, NATIONAL IN SCOPE.
ICANN ITSELF HAS NO FACILITIES IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM TO CONSTRAIN CONTENT ON THE NETWORK.
[ APPLAUSE ].

>>SHARIL TARMIZI: VINT, IF I MAY QUICKLY RESPOND TO THAT. I THINK THAT'S PART OF THE CHALLENGE AND THE CONUNDRUM HERE.
AS GOVERNMENTS, AS GOVERNMENTS, WE ARE HERE, PART OF THE ICANN PROCESS. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, AS GOVERNMENTS, SOME OF US DO HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS OR LEGISLATIVE PRO VISIONS OR POLICY PROVISIONS THAT ACTUALLY REQUIRE THAT WE ALSO LOOK AT CONTENT.
SO ON THE ONE HAND, WE UNDERSTAND THE MANDATE YOU HAVE HERE IN ICANN IN RELATION TO TECHNICAL COORDINATION, BUT GOVERNMENTS BEING PART OF THE ICANN PROCESS HAVE OTHER BROADER CONSIDERATIONS.
I TAKE YOUR POINT ABOUT DEALING WITH SOME OF THOSE ISSUES AT A NATIONAL LEVEL, BUT AT THE SAME TIME I DON'T THINK YOU CAN REMOVE AWAY THE FACT THAT GOVERNMENTS CAN'T SLICE THEMSELVES UP AND SAY THIS IS A TECHNICAL ISSUE AND THIS ISN'T.

>>VINT CERF: NOT TO PROLONG THE DEBATE BUT I WOULD SAY IF YOU COMMUNICATE TO ICANN INFORMATION WHICH YOU BELIEVE ICANN CAN ACT UPON, AND IF IT'S NOT POSSIBLE FOR ICANN TO ACT UPON IT, THEN THIS AT LEAST NEEDS TO BE UNDERSTOOD.
IF YOU WANT TO CONVEY IN THE COMMUNIQUE INFORMATION WHICH REFERS TO THE BROADER ROLE OF GOVERNMENTS SO THAT WE HAVE A CONTEXT IN WHICH -- WITHIN WHICH YOU ARE CONVEYING ADVICE TO ICANN, IT'S HELPFUL IF THERE IS CLARITY ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THOSE CONCERNS, BROADER CONCERNS OF GOVERNMENT, WHICH I THINK WE ALL UNDERSTAND YOU BEAR, AND THOSE SPECIFIC THINGS THAT YOU WISH ICANN TO BE ATTENTIVE TO.
AND NOT DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN THOSE TWO THINGS CAN LEAD TO SOME CONFUSION.
OKAY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SHARIL.
PRESSING ON, I'LL ASK STEVE CROCKER, IF HE'S HERE, TO PREPARE -- I'M SORRY, STEVE.
I APOLOGIZE.
I'VE JUMPED AHEAD.
I'VE SKIPPED OVER SUZANNE WOOLF, WHO WAS SUPPOSED TO PRESENT THE ROOT SERVER SYSTEM ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
SO, SUZANNE, LET ME HAVE DO YOU THAT NOW.

>>SUZANNE WOOLF: SURE.
AS IT TURNS OUT, STEVE AND I ARE OFTEN MISTAKEN FOR EACH OTHER.

>>VINT CERF: I'M NOT GOING THERE.

>>STEVE CROCKER: PHOTO OP.

>>SUZANNE WOOLF:I HAVE TO SAY, FOR THE FIVE PEOPLE IN THE ROOM WHO ARE HERE FOR THE TECHNICAL TALK, THIS IS YOUR MOMENT.
[ LAUGHTER ]

>>SUZANNE WOOLF: IN DEFERENCE TO EVERYONE ELSE, I'M HAPPY TO BE BRIEF, BUT I'D LIKE TO PRESENT A QUICK UPDATE ON THE RECENT ACTIVITIES FOR THE ROOT SERVER SYSTEM ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
AS MOST OF YOU KNOW, RSSAC IS ONE OF THE ORIGINAL ICANN ADVISORY COMMITTEES, IT INCLUDES ROOT NAME SERVER OPERATORS AND OTHER INTERESTED OPERATIONS FOLKS.
DOESN'T REPRESENT THE ROOT NAME SERVER OPERATORS, BUT SERVES AS A FORUM FOR INTERACTION BETWEEN THE OPERATORS AND ICANN AND OTHER ACTIVE BODIES SUCH AS THE IETF.
PROVIDES WRITTEN RECOMMENDATIONS AND ALSO SOMETIMES INFORMAL ADVICE TO IANA AND THE ICANN BOARD.
MEETS, TYPICALLY, AT IETF.
MOST RECENTLY, LAST WEEK IN DALLAS.
JUST A QUICK REVIEW OF, WE'VE HAD A -- I GUESS IT'S NOW AT THIS POINT A TRADITION, WE'VE DONE IT MORE THAN TWICE, OF OPERATIONS UPDATES.
WE DISCUSS RECENT ANYCAST DEPLOYMENTS.
I THINK THE LARGEST RECENT EXPANSION IS BY J ROOT THAT'S OPERATED BY VERISIGN.
BUT OTHERS HAVE ALSO CONTINUED EXPANDING ANYCAST.
THERE'S A DIVERSITY OF OPERATIONAL MODELS AND TECHNICAL MODELS INVOLVED, WHICH WE THINK IS ONE OF THE GREAT STRENGTHS OF THE SYSTEM WE HAVE.
THE ANYCAST IS UNDERTAKEN PRINCIPALLY TO IMPROVE ATTACK RESISTANCE AND IMPROVE SERVICE OF GLOBAL INTERNET SERVICE, ALL OVER, WHERE THERE'S INTERNET.
THAT HAS CONTINUED.
WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON A WRITTEN RECOMMENDATION REGARDING IPV6 ADDRESSES FOR THE ROOT NAME SERVERS THEMSELVES.
THAT RECOMMENDATION IS NOT QUITE READY TO FORWARD TO IANA AND THE BOARD.
THERE'S SOME SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION AND SOME FINAL DETAIL TO BE ADDED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE GUIDANCE WE GIVE IANA IS COMPLETE AND WILL SUFFICE.
THERE'S ALSO A LONGSTANDING ITEM JUST REGARDING DNSSEC.
PRINCIPALLY, DEPLOYMENT AT THE ROOT NAME SERVER LEVEL IS WAITING ON OTHERS.
THERE ARE BEGINNING TO BE SIGNED TLDS.
SO WE LOOK FORWARD TO TIME LINE AND ACTIVITY FROM ICANN AND IANA ON SIGNING THE ROOT.
JUST QUICKLY, A COUPLE OF NEW ITEMS FOR THIS MEETING.
WE TALKED AT SOME LENGTH ABOUT THE COMMUNICATION FROM THE PRESIDENT'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON IDNS REGARDING THE PROPOSED TEST.
FIRST, RSSAC DOES APPRECIATE THE CONSULTATION, THERE WAS, FRANKLY, A LITTLE BIT OF CONCERN EXPRESSED IN THE ROOM THAT THE CONSULTATION BEGAN AS THE PAPER WAS PUBLICLY POSTED.
BUT WE'RE HAPPY TO PROVIDE INPUT.
MOSTLY, PEOPLE WOULD LIKE TO BE PART OF DEVELOPING FURTHER DETAIL REGARDING THE PROJECT PLAN AND THE INTENDED OUTCOMES, WHAT ARE THE METRICS, THE DETAILED TIME LINES, AND THE SPECIFIC PURPOSES.
YOU KNOW, HOW WILL WE KNOW A SUCCESSFUL TEST FROM THE TECHNICAL AND OPERATIONAL STANDPOINT.
IT'S WORTH NOTING THAT JUST QUICKLY ON THE TECHNICAL ELEMENTS, NS RECORDS ARE HOW A STANDARD DELEGATION FROM THE ROOT ZONE IS DONE.
DNAME IS ESTABLISHED IN THE STANDARD, IT'S IMPLEMENTED IN THE SOFTWARE BUT HAS NOT HAD TO FUNCTION IN THE ROOT ZONE BEFORE.
SO THERE WILL NEED TO BE SOME CLOSE LOOK AT THE TECHNICAL IMPLICATIONS OF INCLUDING DNAME.
AND THIS IS, FRANKLY, OUR STANDARD ROLE, IS DUE DILIGENCE ON THIS KIND OF CHANGE TO THE CONTENTS AND OPERATION OF THE ROOT ZONE.
THE OTHER NEW ITEM THAT CAME UP FOR DISCUSSION WAS ON THE RECENT AND VERY PUBLICIZED DNS-BASED DDOS ATTACKS THAT SOME PROMINENT OPERATORS HAVE SUFFERED.
THIS SORT OF ATTACK HAS BEEN WITH US FOR ALMOST AS LONG AS THERE'S BEEN INTERNET.
SO THERE'S NOTHING SPECIFIC TO DNS ABOUT THIS KIND OF A PROBLEM.
BUT THE RECENT ATTACKS HAVE BECOME NEWSWORTHY BECAUSE THEY'VE BEEN USED TO ATTACK DNS INFRASTRUCTURE AND BECAUSE THEY ARE USING DNS AS LEVERAGE.
THEY'RE BASED ON THE ABILITY TO FORGE IP ADDRESSES AND A SPECIFIC COMMON DNS CONFIGURATION.
THE WAY THE ATTACK OPERATES IS BASICALLY THAT QUERIES -- DNS QUERIES ARE SENT TO NAME SERVERS ALL OVER THE INTERNET.
THERE TURN OUT TO BE QUITE A FEW NAME SERVERS THAT WILL ANSWER QUERIES FROM ANYWHERE.
AND THOSE QUERIES HAVE A FORGED SOURCE OF -- AND THE ADDRESS OF THE VICTIM.
SO THE VICTIM BASICALLY ENDS UP DROWNING IN REPLIES TO QUESTIONS IT NEVER ASKED.
SO THERE ARE BOTH THE ABILITY TO FORGE ADDRESSES AND THE SPECIFIC DNS COMMON CONFIGURATION, EXCUSE ME, THAT ALLOWS FOR SO MANY QUERIES TO BE ANSWERED TO FORGED REQUESTS.
BOTH OF THOSE ARE IMPLICATED.
BOTH OF THOSE ARE ENABLING FACTORS.
AND THERE'S A LARGE EDUCATIONAL AND OPERATIONAL EFFORT TO ADDRESS THOSE.
AT THIS TIME, THERE IS A GREAT DEAL OF CONCERN BY RSSAC ABOUT THIS ISSUE, PARTICULARLY BY THE OPERATORS.
BUT THERE WILL NOT BE FORMAL OPERATION FROM RSSAC, BECAUSE THE MEMBERS ARE INVOLVED WITH UNDERTAKINGS BY OTHER GROUPS, SUCH AS SSAC AND THE IETF.
QUICK ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE.
RSSAC IS POPULATED PRIMARILY BY PEOPLE WHO DON'T LIKE COMMITTEES, BUT THERE'S BEEN SOME RECOGNITION OF THE POSSIBILITY OF MAKING BEING A LITTLE MORE ACTIVE AND PRODUCTIVE IN FUTURE.
WE LOOK TOWARDS WORKING MORE CLOSELY WITH IANA, WHICH MAY MEAN MORE FORMAL DOCUMENTS IN THE FUTURE.
THERE'S ALSO SOME EFFORT TO GET DOCUMENTS OUT FASTER.
FORMAL RECOMMENDATIONS ARE NOT OFTEN NEEDED, BUT WE'D LIKE TO SEE THEM HAPPEN A LITTLE QUICKER WHEN THEY ARE.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SUZANNE.
ONE OBSERVATION TO MAKE ABOUT THE DISTRIBUTED DENIAL OF SERVICE ATTACKS, THEY ARE PRETTY SCARY WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE SCALING FACTORS THAT THEY CAN INTRODUCE.
THE PECULIAR THING ABOUT TRYING TO PREVENT THEM OR INHIBIT THEM BY SHUTTING DOWN LET'S CALL IT RECURSIVE NAME SERVERS OR RESOLVERS, IS THAT THOSE OPEN RESOLVERS MAY VERY WELL BE PART OF WHAT MAKES THE INTERNET WORK FAIRLY FLEXIBLY, SO THAT WHEN YOU SHOW UP AT A STARBUCKS SITE, IT'S NOT HARD TO FIND SOMEONE, SOME SYSTEM SOMEWHERE TO DO DOMAIN NAME RESOLUTION.
I AM NOT FOR A MOMENT SUGGESTING THAT WE SHOULD CONTINUE ON THE PATH THAT WE'RE IN RIGHT NOW, WITH OPEN SERVERS THAT ARE ALSO SO DANGEROUS.
BUT I HOPE THAT AS WE TRY TO RESOLVE THE PROBLEM THAT WE TRY TO MAKE SURE WE ALSO UNDERSTAND ALL OF THE POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES OF DIFFERENT ARCHITECTURAL CHOICES SO THAT WE DON'T ACCIDENTALLY HAMSTRING AN IMPORTANT PART OF THE NETWORK'S RESILIENCE.

>>SUZANNE WOOLF: IF I COULD JUST SORT OF AMPLIFY THAT VERY BRIEFLY.
THIS IS AN INFRASTRUCTURE ATTACK AGAINST THE OPENNESS AND FLEXIBILITY OF THE INTERNET.
IT TURNS OUT THAT THE BAD GUYS CAN EXPLOIT THAT ALSO.
BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE SHOULDN'T CONTINUE TO HAVE THAT.
THE EDUCATIONAL EFFORT, THE OUTREACH AMONG OPERATIONS GROUPS, THE ONES THAT I KNOW OF RIGHT NOW ARE CONCENTRATED ON INFORMING THE PEOPLE WHOSE RESOURCES ARE BEING USED IN THESE KINDS OF ATTACKS SO THAT THEY ARE NOT INADVERTENTLY EXPLOITED BY PEOPLE SUBVERTING THE OPEN NATURE OF THE NET.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SUZANNE.
OH, DEMI HAS HIS HAND UP.
GO AHEAD.

>>DEMI GETSCHKO: THANK YOU, SUZANNE, FOR THE REPORT.
JUST A QUESTION, IF WE CAN EXPECT SOME KIND OF ADVICE MAYBE ON BEST PRACTICES AND HOW TO CONFIGURE A SERVICE NOT TO BE REDUNDANT OR SOMETHING LIKE THIS.
WE CAN USE THIS AND SPREAD THROUGH THE COMMUNITIES.

>>SUZANNE WOOLF: THERE ARE SEVERAL, ACTUALLY, SEVERAL ACTIVITIES OF THAT KIND UNDERWAY THAT SOME OF THE RSSAC MEMBERS AND OTHERS ARE PARTICIPATING IN.
STEVE WILL TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT SSAC HAS DONE AND THE DNS OPERATIONS GROUP, WORKING GROUP OF THE IETF, WHOSE JOB IT IS TO PRODUCE BEST PRACTICES ABOUT THE DNS, IS ALSO WORKING ON A NOTE FOR JUST THAT PURPOSE.

>>VINT CERF: OKAY.
PROFESSOR QIAN.

>>HUALIN QIAN: THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN.
MAY I HAVE SOME QUESTION THAT WE NEED SUPPORT FROM THE RSSAC.
WHEN WE ARE DOING IDN, WE HAVE -- ONE OF THE TECHNOLOGIES IS CALLED THE DNAME SYSTEM.
COULD YOU TELL US SOMETHING ABOUT THE MATURENESS OF THIS SYSTEM AND HOW -- DOES IT NEED SOME SUPPORT FROM THE USER'S COMPUTER AND THE LOWER-LEVEL NAME SERVERS TO SUPPORT THIS DNAME SYSTEM?
IS THE CURRENT SOFTWARE THERE -- ALREADY THERE CAN SUPPORT THE DNAME SYSTEM?
THIS IS MY CONCERN ABOUT THE DNAME TECHNOLOGY.
MAYBE YOU CAN GIVE US THE ANSWER.
THANK YOU.

>>SUZANNE WOOLF: SURE, I'M HAPPY TO TRY TO ADDRESS THAT BRIEFLY.
DNAME HAS BEEN PART OF THE DNS STANDARD FOR QUITE SOME TIME.
IT IS A LITTLE BIT COMPLICATED TO SUPPORT ON THE SERVER SIDE, WHICH IS WHY THE EXTRA CARE NEEDS TO BE TAKEN TO TEST AND EVALUATE, JUST AS BEFORE WE PUT ANYTHING WE HAVEN'T PUT IN THE ROOT ZONE BEFORE.
BUT THE REASON WHY IT'S COMPLEX -- WELL, IT CAN BE COMPLEX TO SUPPORT ON THE SERVER SIDE IS PRIMARILY THAT IT IS NOT A PROBLEM ON THE CLIENT SIDE.
THERE'S BACKWARDS COMPATIBILITY TO OLDER CLIENTS BUILT INTO THE WAY IT FUNCTIONS.
SO I THINK YOU'LL SEE THAT IF IT WERE -- THAT IT WORKS ON THE SERVER SIDE IN A WAY THAT'S COMPATIBILITY WITH THE CLIENTS, EVEN THE SIMPLE-MINDED OR THE OLDER CLIENTS, ON THE USER SIDE.

>>VINT CERF: OKAY.
IF THERE ARE NO OTHER QUESTIONS, LET'S GO ON NOW TO STEVE CROCKER'S REPORT FROM THE SECURITY AND STABILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

>>STEVE CROCKER: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
THE SECURITY AND STABILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE -- I'LL SAY ABOUT WHAT WE HAVE BEEN DOING AND WHAT WE REPORTED ON THIS WEEK, AND ALSO A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE DNSSEC DEPLOYMENT OUTREACH EFFORT.
LET ME JUST BRIEFLY COVER SSAC, SECURITY AND STABILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
HERE'S THE CURRENT SET OF MEMBERS.
THIS IS DRAWN FROM A VERY BROAD SET ACROSS THE COMMUNITY, EXPERTS IN REGISTRY OPERATIONS, EXPERTS IN REGISTRAR OPERATIONS, EXPERTS IN ADDRESS ALLOCATION, SECURITY RESEARCH EXPERTS, VERY BROAD GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION.
AND EACH PERSON FAIRLY EXPERT IN HIS OWN OR HER OWN AREA.
WE DO NOT HAVE ANY FUNCTIONARIES WHO ARE ON THE COMMITTEE AS THEIR PRIMARY JOB.
EVERYBODY HAS A PRIMARY ACTIVITY THAT TAKES THEM -- KEEPS THEM LIVE AND CURRENT, ALSO PUTS A REAL STRESS IN TERMS OF BANDWIDTH ON WHAT WE CAN DO.
WE HAVE A HANDFUL OF OTHER PEOPLE.
WE HAVE IN THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS HAD THE GREAT BENEFIT OF HAVING DAVE PISCITELLO AS A PAID STAFF MEMBER THAT WE RECRUITED IN THE ROLE OF ICANN FELLOW TO DRAMATICALLY HELP US AND INCREASE OUR WRITTEN OUTPUT.
JIM GALVIN HAS BEEN HANDLING THE ORGANIZATIONAL ASPECTS.
STEFANO TRUMPY AND PATRIK FALTSTROM HAVE BEEN LIAISONS FROM THE GAC AND THE IAY RESPECTIVELY.
DANIEL KARRENBERG HAS BEEN A SORT OF VIP, INVITED GUEST, ON THE COMMITTEE, ALSO VERY HELPFUL.
OUR ROLE, WE HAVE A FORMAL CHARTER.
AND IN -- WHEN ONE BOILS IT DOWN, WE HAVE SECURITY AND STABILITY EXPERTISE.
WE'RE CALLED UPON AND VERY OFTEN CALL UPON OURSELVES, SELF-TASKED, TO GIVE ADVICE TO THE BOARD, TO THE STAFF, TO SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS, AND, MOST IMPORTANTLY AND NOT TO BE DISMISSED AT ALL, IS TO THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE, THAT IS, WE ARE FOCUSED NOT JUST ON PROVIDING ADVICE INTO THE ICANN COMMUNITY AND ORGANIZATION, BUT ALSO, TO THE EXTENT THAT IT'S RELEVANT, TO A BROADER SET OF PEOPLE.
WE HAVE NO FORMAL AUTHORITY.
WE'RE NOT A REGULATORY OR JUDICIAL OR LEGISLATIVE BODY OR ANYTHING COMPARABLE LIKE THAT.
OUR ROLE IS PURELY TO GIVE ADVICE, AND HENCE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF WHAT WE DO IS JUDGED BY WHETHER PEOPLE LISTEN OR ARE INFORMED BY THE ADVICE THAT WE GIVE.
AND THAT SERVES AS A KIND OF NATURAL CHECK AND BALANCE WHICH, FRANKLY, GIVES US GREAT COMFORT SO THAT WE CAN SPEAK OUR MINDS FREELY AND NOT HAVE TO ALSO TAKE ON THE ADDITIONAL RESPONSIBILITY OF WORRYING ABOUT WHETHER THERE ARE ALL THE PROCESS CHECKS OR WHETHER EVERY ASPECT HAS BEEN CONSIDERED, BECAUSE THERE'S PLENTY OF TIME AND PLENTY OF OPPORTUNITY FOR THE ADVICE TO BE FILTERED AND ABSORBED AND CONSIDERED BY OTHERS.
THE REPORTS THAT WE WRITE ARE USUALLY RELATED TO SPECIFIC INCIDENT OR AN ISSUE.
AND THOSE REPORTS GENERALLY HAVE THE STRUCTURE OF A DOCUMENTATION OF THE INCIDENT, DISCUSSION OF THE CONTEXT IN WHICH IT TOOK PLACE, AND THEN SOME FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, WHERE THE FINDINGS ARE OUR BEST UNDERSTANDING OF THE FACTS OF THE MATTER, AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE THE ADVICE THAT WE ARE GIVING TO OTHERS.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I HOLD VERY DEAR IN THAT PROCESS IS THAT WHEN WE ENGAGE IN THIS, THAT WE'RE NOT ONLY DEALING WITH THE SPECIFIC INCIDENT, BUT WE'RE TAKING THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN TO A -- GENERALLY, TO AN AUDIENCE THAT IS NOT NECESSARILY EXTREMELY FAMILIAR WITH ALL OF THE NUTS AND BOLTS ABOUT HOW THINGS WORK, AND HENCE PROVIDE IN A OPPORTUNISTIC WAY A BIT OF AN EDUCATION AS THINGS GO ALONG.
THE OTHER ASPECT OF OUR REPORTS AND OF OUR WORK IN GENERAL IS THAT WE TAKE A BIT OF A BROAD SENSE OF SECURITY AND STABILITY THAT INCLUDES PROTECTING REGISTRANTS AND USERS AND END SYSTEMS, WHO FREQUENTLY DO NOT HAVE A WELL-ORGANIZED AND DEFINED VOICE IN THIS COMMUNITY.
WE'RE NOT TRYING TO MAKE POLICY, BUT WE ARE TRYING TO BRING CLARITY AND BALANCE THE PLAYING FIELD A BIT IN THE SENSE OF PROVIDING EDUCATION AND INSIGHT INTO THE CONNECTIVITY BETWEEN POLICIES MADE IN ONE AREA AND OPERATIONS MADE IN ANOTHER AREA, FOR EXAMPLE.
LET ME MOVE TO THE MATERIAL THAT WE'VE COVERED THIS WEEK.
IN THE SSAC PUBLIC MEETING ON TUESDAY, WE TALKED ABOUT ALTERNATIVE TLD NAME SYSTEMS AND ROOTS.
AND THIS RELATES IN LARGE PART TO IDNS, BUT AS WELL AS TO OTHER THINGS.
WE ALSO TOOK UP THE AMPLIFIED DNS, DISTRIBUTED DENIAL OF SERVICE ATTACKS, THAT SUZANNE JUST TALKED ABOUT.
AND THEN THERE WAS A DNSSEC WORKSHOP.
SO WITH RESPECT TO ALTERNATE TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS AND IDNS, WE HAVE A REPORT WHICH WE ARE TRANSMITTING TO THE BOARD FOR THEIR ACCEPTANCE TOMORROW, AND THEN PRESUMABLY THE BOARD WILL FORWARD IT ON TO OTHERS, IN WHICH WE TRY TO EXPLICATE THE REASONS AND THE DIFFERENT ACTIVITIES THAT LEAD TO ALTERNATE ROOTS AND TO ADDITIONAL TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS THAT ARE UNOFFICIAL.
THE STRONGEST AND THE ONLY ONE THAT IN OUR JUDGMENT IS -- NEEDS SERIOUS AND PROLONGED CONSIDERATION IS THE SUPPORT FOR MULTILINGUALISM THROUGH INTERNATIONALIZED DOMAIN NAMES.
AND OUR BASIC RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THIS IS IMPORTANT, PAY ATTENTION TO IT, AND WE SUPPORT THE TEST BED WORK THAT'S UNDER WAY.
AND AS YOU CAN SEE, THIS IS A TOPIC THAT IS VERY LIVE, AND SUZANNE COVERED IT IN A REPORT FROM THE RSSAC.
WE DO TALK TO EACH OTHER.
IT'S -- ONE OF THE TAKEAWAY MESSAGES FROM WHAT I'VE JUST SAID IS THAT THIS IS A TOPIC THAT COVERS QUITE A FEW DIFFERENT GROUPS HENCE THERE IS NO SINGLE HOME FOR IT.
HERE'S A SIGN THAT IS SITTING OUTSIDE THE AUDITORIUM HERE, CAPTURED MY ATTENTION, PARTICULARLY BECAUSE WE WERE TRYING TO RUN A DEMONSTRATION ABOUT DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING, AND THE DEMONSTRATION FAILED BECAUSE THE ENTIRE NETWORK INSIDE THE ROOM WAS DOWN AT THE TIME.
SO "OPEN AND UNCAPTURABLE" IS INDEED THE RIGHT GOAL, NOT ALWAYS ACHIEVED.
AND THAT'S PART OF WHAT DRIVES OUR ATTENTION.
HERE'S -- JUST TO FOLLOW UP A LITTLE BIT ON THESE DISTRIBUTED DENIAL OF SERVICE ATTACK THAT SUZANNE DESCRIBED, THE THING THAT IS -- THESE KINDS OF ATTACKS HAVE BEEN GOING ON FOR A LONG TIME.
THE NEW WRINKLE, THE SORT OF NEW FEATURE, IS AN AMPLIFICATION THAT IS MAKING USE OF THE DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM AS THE AMPLIFIER, NOT BECAUSE THERE IS SOMETHING DRAMATICALLY BROKEN IN THE DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM.
IT JUST IS SORT OF A CONVENIENT PIECE OF LEVERAGE THAT IS BEEN DISCOVERED.
AND THEN THE OTHER THING, WHICH IS SOMEWHAT, IN A TECHNICAL SENSE, UNRELATED, BUT, OF COURSE, VERY RELEVANT FOR OUR PURPOSES HERE, IS THAT THE TARGETS OF SOME OF THESE ATTACKS ARE MAJOR NAME SERVERS, AND HENCE THE EFFECT IS TO DISRUPT DNS SERVICE FOR IMPORTANT DOMAINS.
SO YOU HAVE AN ATTACKER WHO CAPTURES A SET OF ZOMBIES -- LET ME BACK THIS UP -- CAPTURES A SET OF ZOMBIES.
THESE ARE MACHINES THAT HAVE HOLES IN THEM SO THEY CAN BE PENETRATED.
THE ATTACKER INSERTS TROJAN HORSES OR OTHER KINDS OF CODE THAT WILL OPERATE UNDER THE COMMAND OF THE ATTACKER.
THEN THE ZOMBIES -- THE USUAL ATTACK IS THAT ON COMMAND, THE ZOMBIES FLOOD THE TARGET WITH A LOT OF TRAFFIC, AND IT'S THAT FLOODING PROCESS THAT CAUSES THE DENIAL OF SERVICE.
IN THIS CASE, THE NEW WRINKLE IS THAT THE ZOMBIES SEND OUT QUERIES, REGULAR-LOOKING DNS QUERIES, TO A WIDE VARIETY OF OPEN RECURSIVE NAME SERVERS.
BUT THESE QUERIES ARE NORMAL, LOOK EXACTLY RIGHT, EXCEPT FOR ONE SMALL DETAIL.
THEIR RETURN ADDRESS IS NOT THE ACCURATE RETURN ADDRESS.
IT'S NOT THE RETURN ADDRESS OF WHERE IT CAME FROM, BUT, IN FACT, ARE THE RETURN ADDRESS OF THE TARGET.
SO THIS IS LIKE CALLING UP AND ORDERING PIZZAS AND HAVING THEM DELIVERED AT YOUR NEIGHBOR INSTEAD OF YOU, AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN TONS OF PIZZAS ARRIVE AT HIS HOUSE.
THAT, THEN, LEADS TO -- WELL, AND THEN THESE -- THEN -- I'M SORRY.
ONE IMPORTANT DETAIL IS THAT THE RESPONSES TO THESE QUERIES ARE MUCH, MUCH LARGER THAN THE QUERIES THEMSELVES.
SO THE QUERIES ARE SHORT, BUT THE RESPONSES ARE VERY LONG.
AND THAT'S THE AMPLIFICATION FACTOR.
AND THE MEASURED AMPLIFICATION IS IN THE RANGE OF ABOUT 70-TO-1.
THAT IS, YOU KNOW, A 60-BYTE MESSAGE IS SENT IN, AND A 4,000 OR 4200-BYTE MESSAGE COMES BACK.
SO YOU CAN GET A VERY LARGE ATTACK WITH A RELATIVELY SMALL NUMBER OF MACHINES.
AND IF YOU USE A LARGE NUMBER OF MACHINES, THEN YOU GET AN ABSOLUTELY OVERWHELMING SIZE ATTACK.
SO THE BASIC ANSWER IS CACHED INTO THE OPEN RECURSIVE SERVERS.
AND THEN THESE OPEN RECURSIVE SERVERS SEND THIS FLOOD OF ATTACKS TO THE TARGET.
OUR RECOMMENDATIONS ARE THAT, OF COURSE, THIS IS NOT PURELY A DNS ISSUE, THAT THE STRONGEST THING THAT CAN BE DONE IS TO STOP THE -- PERMITTING FORGED RETURN ADDRESSES.
THIS IS ADVICE THAT HAS BEEN AROUND, IT EVENTUALLY WILL NEED TO BE DEALT WITH, BUT IT REQUIRES SYSTEMATIC TREATMENT BY ISPS.
IT IS NOT SOMETHING, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT ICANN CAN DO ANYTHING ABOUT DIRECTLY OR CAN MANDATE.
AND WILL TAKE A WHILE.
IN THE MEANTIME, THE TARGETS OF SUCH ATTACKS WILL HAVE TO TAKE SUCH PROTECTIVE MEASURES AS THEY -- AS THEY CAN.
AND THE RESULTS MAY NOT BE QUITE AS CLEAN AND PRETTY AS EVERYBODY WOULD LIKE, BECAUSE THERE MAY BE A LITTLE BIT OF LOSS OF SERVICE IN SOME OTHER RESPECTS, AND IT'LL BE A CASE OF BALANCING BAD EFFECTS ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
WITH RESPECT TO THE DEPLOYMENT OF THE DOMAIN NAME SECURITY PROTOCOL, THINGS ARE MOVING ALONG.
IT'S A SLOW AND SOMEWHAT PONDEROUS PROCESS, BUT IT IS COMING.
THE BIG NEWS IS THAT SWEDEN HAS SIGNED ITS ZONE AND IS OPERATING A FULLY COMPLIANT, SIGNED TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN.
RIPE HAS ALSO SIGNED A PORTION OF ITS IN-ADDR.ARPA DOMAIN.
AND MORE ARE COMING.
DOT ORG HAS BEEN RUNNING A TEST BED.
ULTRADNS, WHICH PROVIDES THE LOOKUP SERVICE, HAS ANNOUNCED THEY ARE GOING TO PROVIDE FULL-OUT DNSSEC SERVICE IN Q2.
THAT'S SOMETIME BEFORE THE END OF JUNE THIS YEAR.
THE OTHER IMPORTANT DEVELOPMENT IS THAT IT'S NOW CLEAR THAT DNS SERVICE PROVIDERS, THAT IS, COMPANIES THAT PROVIDE NAME SERVERS FOR LARGE NUMBERS OF ZONES WILL BE THE PRIMARY LEVERAGE FOR GETTING LARGE NUMBERS OF SIGNED ZONES, AS OPPOSED TO IN-HOUSE OPERATION, AT LEAST IN THE NEAR FUTURE.
UPCOMING WORK -- OH, AND I SHOULD SAY, JUST IN CONCLUDING THAT SECTION, WE HAVE -- WE HAVE REPORTS ON THE DDOS ATTACKS AND A REPORT ON THE IDN, BOTH OF WHICH WE'RE TRANSMITTING TO THE BOARD.
AND THEN THE DNSSEC WORK IS ONGOING, AND THERE'S A VERY LARGE AMOUNT OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE THERE.
UPCOMING WORK.
WE HAVE NOW BEEN IN OPERATION FOR APPROXIMATELY FOUR YEARS.
THE COMMITTEE STARTED IN 2002.
THERE IS A SENSE THAT IT'S TIME TO TAKE A LOOK AT HOW EFFECTIVE WE ARE, KIND OF SELF-ASSESSMENT, WHETHER THE CHARTER MATCHES THE WAY WE THINK OF OURSELVES, WHETHER OUR ACTIONS AND THE TOPICS THAT WE TAKE UP ARE IN LINE WITH THE CHARTER.
AND SO OVER THE NEXT FEW MONTHS, WE ARE TRYING TO LAY ALL OF THAT OUT.
THIS IS PROBABLY VERY MUCH IN LINE WITH WHAT THE OVERALL ICANN PROCESS IS FOR ASSESSING DIFFERENT GROUPS.
IN OUR CASE, WE'RE TAKING THIS UP OF OUR OWN INITIATIVE AS AN INTERNAL -- INTERNALLY DRIVEN QUESTION ABOUT HOW ALIGNED AND HOW EFFECTIVE WE ARE.
SEPARATELY, WE ARE VERY CLOSE TO ADDING COMMENT ON WHOIS WHICH WILL TALK ABOUT ACCESS CONTROL AND TRYING TO MAKE SENSE OUT OF THE MULTIPLE USES OF WHOIS AND BRING SOME TECHNICAL ARCHITECTURE TO THAT.
THERE IS RECENTLY, THIS WEEK, I RECEIVED A MESSAGE REQUESTING THAT WE LOOK AT THE DISPOSITION OF DELETED NAMES IN THE EVENTS THAT REPUTATION IS HARMED, NOT JUST TO THE PRIOR DOMAIN HOLDER, SO THAT SOMEBODY HAS A DOMAIN NAME AND THEY EITHER DELIBERATELY OR ACCIDENTALLY LET THEIR REGISTRATION LAPSE, THEN IT'S PICKED UP BY SOMEBODY ELSE, OFTENTIMES, A PORN SITE.
AND THE CONSEQUENCES ARE NOT JUST SORT OF MINOR INCONVENIENCE, BUT SUBSTANTIAL REPUTATIONAL HARM.
THERE ARE SOME RELATIVELY COMPLICATED ASPECTS OF THIS IN TERMS OF WHAT NOTICE DO PEOPLE HAVE AND KEEPING PEOPLE INFORMED, AND PERHAPS SOME EVEN MORE SOPHISTICATED KINDS OF ANALYSIS THAT ARE USEFUL TO BRING HERE.
WE'RE NOT TRYING TO OWN THIS TOPIC.
THIS IS ONE WHICH, I THINK, IS A BROAD COMMUNITY CONCERN.
AND IF THERE IS SOME IMPROVEMENT TO BE MADE, I THINK THE PRIMARY LEADS WILL BE ELSEWHERE.
PUBLIC INTEREST REGISTRY, WHICH RUNS DOT ORG, IS WHO FORWARDED THE LETTER TO US.
BUT SIMILAR CONCERNS HAVE COME UP IN THE PAST AND I THINK ARE ARISING IN REALTIME FROM OTHER SOURCES.
THAT CONCLUDES MY REPORT.
I'D BE HAPPY TO ENGAGE IN QUESTIONS EITHER NOW OR AT ANY TIME, BY E-MAIL OR OFFLINE.

>>VINT CERF: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, STEVE.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS POINT?
THE AGENDA ALLOWS FOR QUESTIONS NOW FROM THE FLOOR ON THE REPORTS THAT HAVE JUST BEEN PRESENTED, ASO, GAC, RSSAC, AND SSAC.
SO I'LL OPEN THE FLOOR FOR QUESTIONS ON THOSE TOPICS, IF ANYONE WISHES TO RAISE THEM.
AND IF NOT, I WILL PROCEED WITH ADDITIONAL REPORTS.
I THINK I SEE AT LEAST ONE PERSON COMING DOWN.
DON'T FORGET TO IDENTIFY YOURSELF, PLEASE.

>>PAUL WILSON: YEAH, HI.
PAUL WILSON FROM APNIC, THE RIR FOR THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION.
I JUST WANTED TO PUT ON RECORD A CORRECTION TO SOMETHING THAT WAS SAID BEFORE IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ASO REPORT, WHICH IS THAT IPV6 ADDRESS SPACE IS BEING ALLOCATED MORE QUICKLY THAN IPV4 AT THE MOMENT. AND THAT'S NOT TRUE BY ANY STRETCH OR BY ANY INTERPRETATION THAT I'M AWARE OF.
THE -- IN THE EARLY DAYS OF IPV4, THE ALLOCATION UNIT WAS A CLASS A NETWORK, WHICH WAS ABOUT A 250TH OF THE ENTIRE IPV4 ADDRESS SPACE.
AND THOSE BLOCKS WERE ALLOCATED NOT JUST ONE AT A TIME, BUT IN SOME CASES MULTIPLE TO INDIVIDUAL COMPANIES OR GOVERNMENTS.
SO THAT WAS A VERY HIGH RATE OF ADDRESS ALLOCATION AT THE TIME.
THE BIGGEST ADDRESS ALLOCATION THAT'S BEEN HAPPENING LATELY IS A 20-BIT PREFIX, WHICH REPRESENTS ONE MILLIONTH OF THE ENTIRE IPV6 ADDRESS SPACE.
NOW, THAT'S STILL -- THAT IS STILL A VERY LARGE AMOUNT OF ADDRESS SPACE.
AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S BEING ADDRESSED THROUGH THE RIR AND IETF POLICY PROCESSES.
BUT IT'S -- TO ALLOCATE ONE-MILLIONTH OF THE ADDRESS SPACE TO A SINGLE VERY LARGE ISP IS VERY DIFFERENT -- I THINK EVERYONE WOULD AGREE -- FROM ALLOCATING, SAY, 1/100TH OF THE IPV4 ADDRESS SPACE.

>>VINT CERF: IF YOU DON'T MIND, PAUL, LET'S TALK ABSOLUTE NUMBERS RATHER THAN RELATIVE NUMBERS, BECAUSE THAT'S REALLY WHAT'S AT ISSUE FOR ME.
BY THE WAY, I DON'T THINK THAT WE'RE TERRIBLY MISALIGNED NECESSARILY.

>>PAUL WILSON: SURE.
I WANTED TO CORRECT THAT FOR THE RECORD.

>>VINT CERF: SURE.
THE CONCERN I HAVE IS THAT IF IT'S COMMON PRACTICE TO ALLOCATE A SLASH 48 OF AN IPV6 ADDRESS SPACE TO AN INDIVIDUAL USER OR PARTY, THAT'S 80 BITS --

>>PAUL WILSON: EXACTLY.

>>VINT CERF: -- OF ADDRESS.
AND I CONSIDER THAT TO BE A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF ADDRESSES, INDEPENDENT OF THE PERCENTAGE.
THE REASON I AM SO NERVOUS ABOUT IT IS THAT THE INTENT BEHIND THE 128-BIT ADDRESS SPACE WAS TO ESSENTIALLY TRY TO ASSURE THAT WE WON'T RUN OUT AT ALL.
AND ALLOCATING 80 BITS OF ADDRESSES ON A REGULAR BASIS SOUNDS LIKE OVERKILL.
SO THAT'S REALLY THE ORIGIN OF MY CONCERN.

>>PAUL WILSON: THAT 48-BIT PREFIX ACTUALLY IS AN ALLOCATION OR AN ADDRESS MANAGEMENT DECISION, BUT IT WAS ONE THAT WAS HANDLED THROUGH THE IETF PROCESS.
AND ALTHOUGH SOME OF US --
AND, FOR THE RECORD, THAT'S "48-BIT," FOR THE TRANSCRIPT. SOME OF US ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.
80 BITS OF ADDRESS SPACE FOR A SINGLE HOUSE OR A DEVICE IS AN ASTRONOMICAL AMOUNT OF ADDRESS SPACE.
AND SO THERE ARE STILL DISCUSSIONS GOING ON ABOUT THAT BETWEEN THE IETF AND THE RIRS.
THE IETF HAS GOT A GREAT DEAL OF CREDIBILITY AND INFLUENCE IN THIS PROCESS, THOUGH, SO THEIR PARTICIPATION IN THAT PROCESS IS PRETTY CRITICAL.
BUT I EXPECT THOMAS MIGHT HAVE SOMETHING ADDITIONAL TO SAY THAT --

>>VINT CERF: WELL, IF THOMAS WANTS TO SAY SOMETHING, HE WILL HAVE TO WAIT A MINUTE FOR ONE MORE INTERACTION FROM ME.
THE -- I HOPE THAT YOU DIDN'T MISUNDERSTAND MY EARLIER COMMENT AS BEING CRITICAL OF NRO OR RIRS.
IT WAS JUST AN EXPRESSION OF THE CURRENT PRACTICE THAT CAUSED ME TO RAISE THIS AS AN ISSUE.
SO I'M NOT POINTING ANY FINGERS.

>>PAUL WILSON: SURE, YEAH. NO, I UNDERSTOOD WHAT YOU WERE SAYING, BUT TO COMPARE THE RATES OF ALLOCATION MIGHT ACTUALLY CREATE QUITE A WRONG IMPRESSION IN TERMS OF WHAT THE RECORD IS SAYING. TO COMPARE THEM IN --

>>VINT CERF: I UNDERSTAND.
MY HOPE IS THAT THE 128-BIT ADDRESS SPACE WILL LAST UNTIL AFTER I'M DEAD, AND THEN I DON'T WANT TO WORRY ABOUT IT ANYMORE.

>>PAUL WILSON: IT BETTER LAST A LOT LONGER THAN THAT, BECAUSE IF A TRANSITION FROM IPV4 TO IPV6 IS HARD NOW, AND IT IS VERY HARD, THAN A TRANSITION FROM IPV6 TO THE NEXT ONE IS GOING TO REQUIRE SOME MAGIC THAT WE HAVE NO -- NO WAY OF IMAGINING.

>>VINT CERF: WE HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING WHAT THE MAGIC IS.
THOMAS, DID YOU WANT TO RESPOND?

>>THOMAS NARTEN: I GUESS ONE THING I WOULD SAY IS IT'S PRETTY EASY TO START TALKING ABOUT SPECIFICS AND GETTING PRETTY TECHNICAL IN THE DETAILS QUICKLY. SO IT DOES AT ONE LEVEL, SLASH 48 TO A HOME SITE DOES SOUND LIKE AN AWFUL LOT OF ADDRESS SPACE AND I AGREE WITH THAT BUT YOU ALSO HAVE TO LOOK AT THE RELATIVE NUMBERS LIKE WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE ADDRESS SPACE YOU ARE GIVING OUT AND PROJECTIONS OVER TIME SCALES OF HUNDREDS OF YEARS.
SO EVEN THOUGH I AGREE WITH WHAT PAUL AND OTHERS ARE SAYING THAT THE SLASH 48 WHICH IS SORT OF THE CURRENT DEFAULT POLICY IS UP FOR DEBATE AND MAYBE SHOULD BE SHIFTED, THE COMMUNITY IS NOT ENTIRELY UNIFORM ON THAT VIEW, THAT THERE IS EVEN A PROBLEM HERE.
AND THAT'S WHY THESE DISCUSSIONS ARE GOING ON ON HOW BEST TO ADDRESS THAT.

>>VINT CERF: OKAY.
NEXT COMMENT, PLEASE.

>>CALVIN BROWNE: CALVIN BROWNE. I JUST WANTED TO ADDRESS SOMETHING THAT I KEEP SEEING WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THESE RECURSIVE -- SORRY, DISTRIBUTED DENIAL OF SERVICE AND USING RECURSIVE NAME SERVERS.
A LOT OF PEOPLE TURN AROUND AND SAY RECURSION IS BAD IN NAME SERVERS AND NEEDS TO BE TURNED OFF.
BUT WHAT THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND IS THAT IF YOU DO THAT, THEN YOU CAN'T RESOLVE NAMES FOR YOUR USERS.
SO WE JUST NEED TO BE VERY CAREFUL THAT WE UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S ONLY WHEN RECURSION IS AVAILABLE TO THE REST -- TO THE PEOPLE OUTSIDE THE INTERNET THAT THE PROBLEM OCCURS.

>>VINT CERF: THIS IS A GOOD POINT.
THERE ARE TWO ISSUES. ACTUALLY, IT'S EVEN MORE COMPLICATED. ONE ISSUE HAS TO DO WITH WHO HAS ACCESS TO RECURSIVE RESOLUTION. THE SECOND ONE IS THAT IT'S POSSIBLE BY SUPPLYING THE WRONG ADDRESSES, SOURCE ADDRESSES, TO A RECURSIVE RESOLVER THAT YOU GENERATE THE POTENTIAL DISTRIBUTED DENIAL OF SERVICE. SO WE GET VERY QUICKLY INTO QUESTIONS ABOUT SOURCE IP ADDRESS FILTERING AT THE EDGES OF THE NET, WHICH ITSELF MAY OR MAY NOT BE FULLY SATISFACTORY TO INHIBIT THE ATTACKS.
SO OVERLY SIMPLIFIED SOLUTIONS TO THIS PROBLEM ARE CLEARLY NOT ADEQUATE. YOUR POINT BEING PRECISELY TAKEN. THANK YOU.
OKAY. I DON'T SEE ANY OTHER -- ANY OTHERS IN THE QUEUE HERE, SO I THINK WE CAN GO ON NOW.
KURT, KURT PRITZ WAS BRIEFLY STANDING THERE WAITING TO GIVE US A REPORT ON THE STLDS.
BEFORE YOU START, KURT, I NEED TO TELL EVERYONE HERE THAT I AM NOW DUE AT ANOTHER MEETING, AND SO I'M GOING TO HAVE TO LEAVE THE ROOM.
I'M TURNING THIS SESSION OVER TO ALEX PISANTY, THE VICE CHAIR, TO CONTINUE CHAIRING. AND MY ADVICE IS TO CONTINUE THE MEETING TO GO THROUGH ALL THE REPORTS AND TO ALLOW FOR FURTHER FLOOR DISCUSSION AS DESIRED BY THE PARTICIPANTS HERE IN THE ROOM.
SO IF I WALK OUT THE DOOR PLEASE DON'T MISUNDERSTAND IT AS LACK OF INTEREST IN THE PROCEEDINGS.

>>KURT PRITZ: OKAY. THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN.
I HOPE THIS IS THE LAST TIME I'M OFFERING THIS REPORT TO THE BOARD.
SO AS YOU KNOW, SOME TIME AGO THE BOARD DIRECTED THE STAFF TO UNDERTAKE THIS LIMITED DESIGNATION OF NEW TLDS AND THAT THEY BE SPONSORED TLDS.
IN RESPONSE TO A SOLICITATION, ICANN RECEIVED TEN APPLICATIONS FOR THE DESIGNATION OF NEW TLDS. AND THESE ARE THEY.
ICANN CREATED A PROCESS WHERE APPLICATION MATERIALS WERE POSTED AND THE APPLICANTS' USED AN ONLINE PROCESS FOR APPLYING FOR THE TLD.
AFTER RECEIPT OF THE APPLICATION AND A STAFF VERIFICATION THAT THE APPLICATION WAS, IN FACT, COMPLETE, THERE WAS AN INDEPENDENT EVALUATION PROCESS THAT I WILL DESCRIBE IN A MINUTE.
THOSE APPLICANTS THAT SUCCESSFULLY CONCLUDED THAT PART OF THE PROCESS WERE ENTERED INTO TECHNICAL AND COMMERCIAL NEGOTIATIONS WITH ICANN THAT RESULTED IN AGREEMENTS OR WILL RESULT IN AGREEMENTS FOR NEW TLDS.
THE INDEPENDENT EVALUATION PROCESS WAS MANAGED BY AN INDEPENDENT PROGRAM MANAGER. AND THEN EACH APPLICATION WAS MEASURED WITH REGARD TO THREE SETS OF CRITERIA. THERE WERE TECHNICAL CRITERIA, BUSINESS AND FINANCIAL CRITERIA, AND THEN SPONSORSHIP AND COMMUNITY CRITERIA.
THE PANEL WAS AN INTERNATIONAL DIVERSE GROUP OF EXPERTS REPRESENTING EIGHT COUNTRIES.
WE'RE QUITE PROUD OF THE TALENT AND SKILL LEVEL THAT WAS REPRESENTED ON OUR PANELS.
THE EVALUATIONS WERE CONDUCTED IN A BLIND, INDEPENDENT WAY. SO ALL COMMUNICATIONS FUNNELED THROUGH THE PROJECT MANAGER, EITHER COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN THE APPLICANT AND THE EVALUATORS OR COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN ICANN AND THE EVALUATORS OR ICANN AND THE APPLICANTS.
EACH TEAM MET SIX TO EIGHT TIMES BY TELECONFERENCE. THERE WERE NO FACE-TO-FACE MEETINGS, BUT THE MEETINGS WERE, IN FACT, I THINK VERY EFFECTIVE.
PARTWAY THROUGH THE PROCESS, EACH INDEPENDENT PANEL FORMULATED A SET OF QUESTIONS FOR EACH APPLICATION THAT WAS DESIGNED TO FLESH OUT BUT NOT ALTER THE NATURE OF THE APPLICATION, SO THAT THE EVALUATORS COULD ACT WITH FULL INFORMATION.
THERE WAS AN INDEPENDENT EVALUATION REPORT THAT WAS SENT TO EACH OF THE APPLICANTS. AND IN THE CASE WHERE THE APPLICATION MET ALL THREE SETS OF CRITERIA, IT IMMEDIATELY WAS DEEMED TO ENTER INTO TECHNICAL AND COMMERCIAL NEGOTIATIONS.
BUT IN CASES WHERE THE INDEPENDENT EVALUATORS DEEMED THAT THE BASELINE CRITERIA WERE NOT MET INITIALLY, AN OPPORTUNITY WAS PROVIDED TO THE APPLICANTS TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO ENHANCE THEIR APPLICATION. AGAIN, NOT ALTER IT OR CHANGE IT.
IN ORDER TO PROVIDE THE EVALUATORS WITH FULLER INFORMATION AND, THEREFORE, PERHAPS MAKE ANOTHER DETERMINATION. THIS DELAYED THE PROCESS SOMEWHAT, BUT WE THINK IT MADE IT RICHER AND MORE VALID.
SO, THEN, AFTER THE INDEPENDENT EVALUATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE APPLICANT, THE APPLICANT WAS AFFORDED TO RESPOND IN WRITING TO THAT EVALUATION.
THEN A TELECONFERENCE WAS HELD AMONG THE APPLICANT AND THE EVALUATORS, THE PARTICULAR PANEL INVOLVED IN THIS STUDY.
WE THOUGHT THE TELECONFERENCE WOULD SERVE TO MOVE THE PROCESS ALONG MORE QUICKLY RATHER THAN THROWING DOCUMENTS OVER THE WALL BACK AND FORTH.
THEN IN SOME CASES THIS PROCESS WAS ITERATED ONE OR TWO ADDITIONAL TIMES IN ORDER TO FULLY UNDERSTAND THE APPLICATION.
SO IF AT THE CLOSE OF THAT PROCESS THE APPLICATION MET THE BASELINE CRITERIA, IT WENT ON TO TECHNICAL AND COMMERCIAL NEGOTIATIONS. BUT IN CASES WHERE SOME CONTINGENCIES REMAINED, IT WAS PASSED ON TO THE BOARD TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE APPLICATION WOULD THEN ENTER INTO NEGOTIATIONS.
THIS IS THE PRESENT STATUS THAT WILL SERVE TO SETTLE SOME DISCUSSIONS ABOUT TRIVIA QUESTIONS AT THE ICANN BAR AND OTHER WAGERS.
ACTUALLY, FOUR APPLICANTS HAVE COMPLETED NEGOTIATIONS AND ESTABLISHED NEW REGISTRIES.
SO CAT, JOBS, MOBI AND TRAVEL ARE ALL IN THE ROOT.
AGAIN, FOUR OTHER APPLICANTS HAVE ENTERED INTO TECHNICAL AND COMMERCIAL NEGOTIATIONS WITH ICANN. I'LL REPORT THAT IN THE CASE OF THREE OF THEM, ASIA, .TEL AND TRIPLE-X, THOSE NEGOTIATIONS ARE OR ARE ESSENTIALLY COMPLETE, AND THE APPLICATIONS AND THE AGREEMENTS WILL BE PUT BEFORE THE BOARD FOR APPROVAL IN THE NEAR FUTURE. AND THEN THERE ARE TWO APPLICATIONS THAT ARE NO LONGER ACTIVE.
SO THERE'S FOUR STLDS IN THE ROOT. THE .CAT TOP-LEVEL DOMAIN IS PRESENTLY IN ITS SUNRISE PERIOD. I HAD AN I.M. SESSION WITH AMADEU YESTERDAY AND HE REPORTED ONE OF THE REASONS HE WASN'T HERE IS HE IS TRYING TO MANAGE THE SUNRISE PERIOD. HE IS EXTREMELY BUSY, EXTREMELY PLEASED WITH THE LEVEL OF ACTIVITY AND INVITES EVERYONE TO GOOGLE .CAT AND NOTE THE MILLION OR SO PAGES ASSOCIATED WITH IT.
THERE'S A LARGE AMOUNT OF INTEREST IN REGISTERING NAMES AS SOON AS THE SUNRISE PERIOD IS OVER.
JOBS IS ALSO IN THE ROOT. IT'S ENGAGED WITH A NUMBER OF REGISTRARS, THAT IT HAS APPROVED THOSE REGISTRARS FOR ACCREDITATION AND IS REGISTERING NAMES AND HAS BEEN SINCE LATE 2005.
MOBI IS SCHEDULED TO ENTER INTO ITS SUNRISE PERIOD NEXT MONTH. THEY HAVE ALSO ENTERED INTO AGREEMENT WITH A NUMBER OF REGISTRARS SO THAT THEY HAVE ACCREDITED REGISTRARS TO SELL THE .MOBI NAMES.
AND TRAVEL HAS LAUNCHED A LIMITED PHASE. IT'S BEEN VERY ACTIVE.
THE NUMBER OF REGISTRATIONS IN EACH CASE IS HELD CONFIDENTIAL FOR THREE MONTHS, BUT THEY HAVE BEEN VERY SUCCESSFUL IN THEIR COMMUNITY IN REGISTERING NAMES AND HAVE ALSO ENTERED INTO AGREEMENTS WITH A NUMBER OF REGISTRARS.
SO THESE FOUR STLDS THAT ARE IN THE ROOT ARE ALL VERY ACTIVE.
IF YOU WANT TO LOOK AT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, YOU CAN GO TO ICANN.ORG AND CLICK ON THE NEW SPONSORED TLD APPLICATIONS ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE.
THERE IS A WEALTH OF INFORMATION THERE, INCLUDING THE INDEPENDENT EVALUATIONS THAT WERE YOU PUBLICLY POSTED A FEW MONTHS AGO.
SOME OF THE -- OOPS, I'M SORRY.
SOME OF THE DETAILED INFORMATION IN THOSE DOCUMENTS HAS BEEN REDACTED BECAUSE IT'S COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL, BUT IT IS QUITE RICH IN ITS DETAIL.
IN ADDITION, AND IN ORDER TO FACILITATE THE SUCCESS OF THESE DOMAINS AND THESE TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS AND OTHERS, ICANN HAS CREATED AN AREA ON OUR SITE FOR UNIVERSAL ACCEPTANCE OF TLDS. AND WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO AUGMENT THAT SITE AND PROVIDE TOOLS TO CODE WRITERS TO ENSURE THAT TLDS, WHEN THEY ARE TYPED AS PART OF A URL, WILL BE ACCEPTED.
SO THAT'S ALL I HAVE ON THIS PRESENTATION.
ALEJANDRO?

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: WE ARE SCHEDULED TO HAVE -- I'M SORRY. LET ME GET THE SCHEDULE UP.
THESE REPORTS, THE IDN REPORT AND THE IANA UPDATE, AND THEN COMMENTS.
SO UNLESS THERE ARE VERY SHARP, PROMPT QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD, WE WILL MOVE FORWARD TO THE IDN REPORT BY TINA DAM.

>>TINA DAM: MY NAME IS TINA DAM. I AM THE CHIEF REGISTRY LIAISON FOR THE GTLD REGISTRY OPERATORS AT ICANN.
AND I ALSO MANAGE ALL OF THE IDN PROJECTS FROM ICANN'S SIDE.
AND I'M JUST GOING TO SPEND A FEW SLIDE IN GIVING YOU A STATUS UPDATE ON WHAT WE HAVE BEEN DOING SINCE LAST IN VANCOUVER.
THE AGENDA IS LARGELY FOCUSED AROUND THREE MAIN TOPICS. ACTIVITIES COMING OUT OF THE PRESIDENT'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR IDNS, WHAT IS GOING ON IN THE DIFFERENT IDN MEETINGS IN WELLINGTON AND WHAT WE FORESEE MOVING FORWARD TO MOROCCO.
SO FIRST OF ALL, THE ROLE OF THE PRESIDENT'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE. THIS COMMITTEE WAS ANNOUNCED LATE LAST YEAR.
WE HAVE MONTHLY MEETINGS. THERE IS 18 MEMBERS. I WOULD SAY BROADLY, GLOBALLY REPRESENTATIVES ARE MEMBERS HERE. SOME OF THEM HAVE BEEN SELECTED OUTSIDE THE SOS AND THE DIFFERENT CONSTITUENCIES WITHIN THE ICANN COMMUNITY AND OTHERS HAVE BEEN NOMINATED BUT -- DIRECTLY BY CONSTITUENCIES.
WE HAVE THREE CHAIRS. ALL MEMBERS OF THE ICANN BOARD.
THE COMMITTEE AS SUCH IS TASKED WITH CREATING SOME OVERVIEW OF WHAT THE BARRIERS AND OPPORTUNITIES ARE IN TERMS OF DEVELOPMENT OF IDNS.
IN PARTICULAR, THEY HAVE BEEN ASKED TO ANALYZE WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENT CHALLENGES THAT HAS TO DO WITH IDN IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES AND PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS OF SOLUTIONS TO IT.
THEY PROVIDE THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS TO ICANN'S PRESIDENT AND TO THE STAFF, AFTER WHICH WE'LL MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT HOW TO IMPLEMENT IT, WHETHER IT NEEDS ANY ADDITIONAL APPROVAL PROCESSES AND SO FORTH.
THE COMMITTEE, MOSTLY BECAUSE THEY HAVE SUCH A WIDE VARIETY OF EXPERTISE IN TERMS OF TECHNICAL, POLITICAL, POLICY MATTERS, LINGUISTIC MATTERS THAT HAS TO DO WITH IDNS, ALSO WOULD LIKE TO BE ASSISTING SOME OF OUR SOS AND ACS IN TERMS OF POLICY DECISIONS.
NOW, THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE COMMITTEE ITSELF IS GOING TO MAKE POLICY DECISIONS. IT JUST MEANS THAT THE CONVERSATIONS THAT ARE GOING ON IN TERMS OF HOW IDNS ARE BEING IMPLEMENTED AND THE ISSUES AND SOLUTIONS TO THAT HAS SOME KIND OF -- WELL, IT COULD HAVE SOME KIND OF POLITICAL AND POLICY IMPACTS. SO THE COMMITTEE WILL ALSO PASS ON THEIR EXPERTISE AND INFORMATION SO THAT THE SOS CAN MAKE SOME MORE INFORMED POLICY DECISIONS.
SO THE FIRST THING UP THAT THE PRESIDENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE HAS BEEN TASK WITH IS THE IANA REPOSITORY.
WE HAVE MADE SOME COMPLETED CHANGES -- WHOOPS.
THE FIRST THING WHAT WAS THAT WE ALLOWED FOR THE SCRIPT-BASED TABLES IN ADDITION TO LANGUAGE-BASED TABLES.
THAT'S A HISTORIC, I GUESS -- IT WASN'T SUCH A GOOD IDEA TO JUST SAY THIS IS LANGUAGE, AND IT HAS TO DO WITH THE WAY THE GUIDELINES WERE FORMED, WHICH WE WILL GET TO IN THE NEXT SLIDE.
BASICALLY, JUST TERMINOLOGY. AND THAT'S BEEN CHANGED SO THAT REGISTRIES CAN NOW SEND THEIR SCRIPT-BASED TABLES AS WELL AS THOSE BASED ON LANGUAGES.
THEN WE ADDED SOME FUNCTIONALITY TO SHOW SORT OF THE REGISTRIES SUBMITTING THEIR TABLES CAN SHOW WHAT KIND OF METHOD THEY HAVE USED TO DEVELOP THESE TABLES. IN PARTICULAR, ANY LINGUISTIC EXPERTISE.
AND THE LAST COMPLETED CHANGE IN THIS ROUND WAS THAT WE CHANGED THE NAME TO BE REPOSITORY. IT USED TO BE REGISTRY, AND THAT CAUSED SOME CONFUSION IN THE COMMUNITY BECAUSE IT WASN'T A NORMAL IANA REGISTRY. IT'S JUST A REPOSITORY.
THE IANA STAFF DOES NOT HAVE ANY ROLE IN TERMS OF WHAT'S THE CONTENT OF THESE TABLES. THEY BASICALLY JUST DISPLAY THEM SO THAT WE HAVE ONE PLACE FOR THAT'S TABLES THAT CAN BE USED ACROSS ALL THE REGISTRIES OR ANY OTHER INTERESTED PARTY.
COMING FEATURES. WE'RE GOING TO BE MAKING SOME MORE UPDATES TO THE TEMPLATE. WE ARE DISCUSSING AUTOMATIONS OF PARTS OF THAT. AND THEN THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME SEARCH FUNCTIONALITY AS WELL, SO THAT AS WE GET MORE TABLES DISPLAYED, THERE WILL BE SOME SEARCH FUNCTIONALITIES WHERE YOU CAN SEARCH ON LANGUAGE OR SCRIPT IDENTIFIERS, TLD OR PERHAPS WHICH REGISTRY THAT SUBMITTED IT.
THE PRESIDENT'S COMMITTEE AND STAFF MANAGING THE COMMITTEE OF COURSE IS VERY OPEN FOR ANY COMMENTS THAT THE COMMITTEE SHOULD LOOK AT FOR ANY ADDITIONAL REQUESTS FOR CHANGES.
THEN THE NEXT TOPIC THAT THE COMMITTEE HAS BEEN WORKING ON IS REVISION OF THE GUIDELINES. AND THIS IS ACTUALLY SOMETHING THAT TAKES PLACE BETWEEN THE COMMITTEE AND A WORKING GROUP.
SO WE HAD FORMED AN IDN TLD WORKING GROUP EARLIER THIS YEAR. THEY HAVE A MEMBERSHIP OF CCNSO AND GTLD CONSTITUENCY REPRESENTATIVES.
THEY HAVE BEEN HAVING ALMOST MONTHLY MEETINGS AND HAVE DECIDED THIS YEAR TO HAVE MONTHLY MEETINGS THROUGHOUT TO MOROCCO, AT LEAST.
THE WORKING GROUP CREATED VERSION 2.0 AND 2.1 AND ARE PENDING ANY FURTHER REVISIONS THAT MAY BE NECESSARY.
THE WAY THAT THIS WORKS IN LINE WITH THE PRESIDENT'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE IS THAT THE WORKING GROUP PROVIDES THEIR INPUT -- ACTUALLY, THE WORKING GROUP CREATES THE REVISION. THEY PROVIDE AN UPDATE TO THE PRESIDENT'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE WHICH THEN IN TURN PROVIDES RECOMMENDATIONS TO ICANN ON WHETHER WE SHOULD HAVE SOME PUBLIC COMMENT PERIODS ON THE DIFFERENT CHANGES OF THESE GUIDELINES OR NOT.
THE FIRST VERSION THAT THE WORKING GROUP DID WAS BETWEEN 1.0 AND 2.0, AND THE MAIN CHANGES IN THAT IS THAT WE OPENED UP FOR SCRIPT-BASED IMPLEMENTATIONS IN ADDITION TO LANGUAGE BASED. AS I SAID BEFORE, UNDER THE IANA CHANGES, I WASN'T AROUND AT THAT TIME BUT I DON'T THINK IT WAS INTENTIONAL THAT IT SHOULD BE ONLY LANGUAGE BASED. I THINK IT WAS JUST A CHOICE OF TERMINOLOGY TO TRY TO AVOID THE CONFUSION ABOUT WHAT'S A SCRIPT AND WHAT'S A LANGUAGE.
BUT WE HAVE NOW -- WE FIXED THAT IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE GUIDELINES SO THAT THERE'S NO CONFUSION ABOUT THAT ANYMORE.
YOU CAN BASE YOUR -- IF YOU ARE A REGISTRY AND YOU FOLLOW THE GUIDELINES, YOU CAN BASE YOUR IMPLEMENTATION ON SCRIPTS AS WELL.
IN THAT REVISION EFFORT, WE HAD SOME PUBLIC COMMENTS AND SOME BROAD GLOBAL ANNOUNCEMENTS.
WE ALSO POSTED THE WORKING GROUP'S REASONING FOR WHAT KIND OF AMENDMENTS THEY MADE BETWEEN VERSION 1.0 AND 2.0. AND WE ASKED THE BOARD FOR ENDORSEMENT WHICH THEY GAVE ON 8 NOVEMBER LAST YEAR.
AND THEN THE WORKING GROUP CONTINUED, SINCE WE RECEIVED SOME OF THE COMMENTS, WASN'T SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED TO THE SCRIPT BASE AND THE MIXING OF SCRIPTS BETWEEN LABELS, SO WE CONTINUED THE REVISIONS. WE JUST WANTED THE 2.0 TO COME OUT REALLY FAST TO SOLVE SOME OF THE SPOOFING ISSUES AND PROBLEMS THAT WAS IN THAT TIME PERIOD.
SO -- SO THE GROUP DECIDED TO CONTINUE MAKING INCREMENTAL REVISIONS. SO VERSION 2.0 WAS JUST ANNOUNCED NOT SO LONG AGO.
THE ONLY CHANGE BETWEEN 2.0 AND 2.1 IS INCLUSION OF A PROVISION THAT WAS ALREADY IN VERSION 1.0, BUT WAS TAKEN OUT. IT'S PART OF AN RFC REQUIREMENT TO USE A SPECIFIC RULE WHEN YOU DO A CONVERSION.
AND WE PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE NEVER TAKEN IT OUT. IT'S A VERY STANDARD RULE. IT'S IN ALL OF THE GTLD REGISTRY AGREEMENTS.
AS YOU KNOW, THE IDN GUIDELINES ARE REQUIREMENT FOR THE GTLD OPERATORS. AND PRETTY MUCH ALL OF THEM WHO HAVE IMPLEMENTED IDNS AT THE SECOND LEVEL HAVE NOW IMPLEMENTED UP UNTIL VERSION 2.1 IN THAT EFFORT. AND THOSE THAT HAVEN'T ARE JUST AROUND THE CORNER.
SO WE THOUGHT IT WAS OKAY TO TAKE THIS PROVISION OUT. WE REALIZED THAT THAT WAS PROBABLY A BAD IDEA, SO WE PUT IT BACK IN.
FOR ANY FUTURE VERSIONS AND REVISIONS OF THE GUIDELINES, WE'RE AIMING TOWARDS A BCP APPROACH UNDER THE IETF. AND THE REASON FOR THAT IS THAT WE WANT THE GUIDELINES TO BE USED MUCH MORE BROADLY AND WITHIN TLDS WHERE ICANN DOES NOT HAVE A CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP OR ENFORCEMENT OF THAT.
SO THAT'S THE GUIDELINES.
THEN THE LAST TOPIC THAT IS BEING WORKED ON AT THE COMMITTEE IS THE TECHNICAL TEST APPROACHES.
AND AS HAS BEEN MENTIONED I THINK A COUPLE OF TIMES IN THIS SESSION YESTERDAY AND DEFINITELY THROUGHOUT THE WEEK IS THAT WE WILL BE TESTING TWO DIFFERENT METHODS. THE NS RECORDS, WHICH ARE THE WAY THAT WE NORMALLY PUT NEW TLDS INTO ROOT. WE JUST HAVEN'T TRIED IT WITH IDNS.
WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT IF YOU DO A TRANSLATION OR TRANSLITERATION OF A TLD INTO AN IDN TLD, THE DOMAIN NAMES UNDER THOSE TWO ENTITIES DO NOT NECESSARILY RESOLVE TO THE SAME INTERNET ADDRESS.
AND THAT'S JUST A TECHNICAL FUNCTIONALITY OF IT.
ON TOP OF THAT CAN BE ANY POLICY DECISIONS MADE.
THEN THE SECOND APPROACH IS DNAMES. DNAMES IS AN EQUIVALENT MAPPING OF ONE DOMAIN INTO ANOTHER.
AND AS SUZANNE WAS MENTIONING IN HER REPORT JUST NOT SO LONG AGO, IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN AROUND FOR A WHILE, BUT WE HAVEN'T TRIED IT TO MAP BETWEEN TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS AND THE ROOTS. SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT HAS TO BE TRIED OUT AS WELL.
IF THIS METHOD IS USED, IT MEANS THAT DOMAIN NAMES UNDER TLD AND DOMAIN NAMES UNDER THE IDN EQUIVALENTS OF THOSE TLDS WILL ACTUALLY RESOLVE TO THE SAME INTERNET ADDRESS.
SO THERE IS SOME SORT OF POLICY IMPLICATIONS OF THAT, ALL DEPENDING ON WHAT THE POLICY BODIES ARE DECIDING IN THEIR PROCESSES.
I THINK THE MOST IMPORTANT THING TO NOTICE ABOUT THESE TWO APPROACHES IS THAT WE DON'T KNOW HOW ANY OF THESE ARE GOING TO BE WORKING AND THAT'S WHY WE NEED TO TEST IT OUT.
IT COULD BE THAT THEY ARE BOTH WORKING. IT COULD BE THAT THEY ARE BOTH WORKING SLIGHTLY DIFFERENTLY THAN WE THINK THEY WILL BE WORKING FROM A TECHNICAL PERSPECTIVE.
IT ALSO COULD BE THAT JUST ONE OR NONE OF THEM ARE WORKING.
SO AS SOON AS WE HAVE THAT INFORMATION, OF COURSE THAT'S GOING TO BE PROVIDED TO THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT BODY SO THEY CAN MAKE THEIR BETTER OR MORE INFORMED DECISIONS.
SO THE WAY THAT WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS IS AS FOLLOWS. WE POSTED MID-MARCH A PROJECT TIME LINE. NOW, THE TIME LINE DOES NOT GO THROUGHOUT THE TEST AND THE EVALUATION OF THE TEST. THE TIME LINE IS TO SHOW THE PRESIDENT'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS' COMMITMENT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS TEST.
AND IT GOES TOWARDS AT A POINT IN TIME WHERE WE BELIEVE WE WILL HAVE A FULL PROGRAM READY FOR HOW TO IMPLEMENT THE TEST.
SO IN MARCH WE HAD SOME INITIAL RSSAC AND SSAC CONSULTATION DURING THE DALLAS MEETING. THAT HAS BEEN VERY INITIAL INFORMATION TO LET THEM KNOW THAT THIS IS GOING ON AND THAT WE WOULD LIKE THEIR SUPPORT AND EXPERTISE AND ASSISTANCE IN WORKING FORWARD WITH THIS.
THE FIRST COUPLE OF REPORTS WE GOT BACK FROM THEM WAS THAT WE NEED TO SPEED UP AND IMPROVE THE COMMUNICATION. AND OF COURSE THAT'S -- WE TOOK THAT ADVICE AND WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO DO THAT BETTER IN THE FUTURE.
THE SECOND THING IS THAT IT'S NOT ALL OF THE ROOT SERVERS THAT ACTUALLY CAN HANDLE DNAMES. THERE IS SOME SOFTWARE UPGRADING THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE.
AND OF COURSE WE NEED SOME MORE DETAILS ABOUT THAT SO THAT WE CAN PUT THAT IN THE TIME LINE THAT'S GOING TO EXPAND FURTHER SO THAT WE KNOW WHEN WE COULD DO THE TESTING AND SO FORTH.
IN THE MONTH OF APRIL, THE COMMITTEE IS INTENDED TO DEVELOP THE DRAFT OBJECTIVES AND THE METHODS AROUND HOW TO TEST IS GOING TO BE RUNNING.
IN MAY, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ON THAT DRAFT, THAT DRAFT PROJECT PLAN.
IN JUNE, WE'RE LOOKING AT REVISION BASED ON THE PUBLIC COMMENTS AND PUTTING THE FINAL PROJECT PLAN FORWARD FOR APPROVAL.
AND THEN IN JULY, WE REALLY SHOULD BE ABLE TO INITIATE THE TEST LAUNCH, PENDING ANY TECHNICAL UPGRADES, AS I SAID.
BUT CERTAINLY THERE'S OTHER IMPLEMENTATIONS OF THIS TEST THAT CAN BE DONE SO THAT WE'RE READY BY THE TIME THAT WE HAVE ALL THE TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES IN PLACE.
SO THE TIME LINE WAS POSTED.
THE OBJECTIVES ARE STILL UNDER WAY.
SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE LOOKING CLOSER AT ARE SELECTION CRITERIA FOR THE APPLICANTS, SO SHOULD THERE BE ANY SPECIFIC CRITERIA FOR ANYONE WHO WANTS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE TEST?
AND IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT IF YOU WANT AN IDN TLD IN PRODUCTION, IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU HAVE TO PARTICIPATE IN A TEST.
THIS IS JUST A TECHNICAL TEST, SO THERE IS NO LINK BETWEEN THOSE TWO OPTIONS.
WE NEED TO HAVE A FIRM DECISION ABOUT WHAT THE LIFETIME OF THE TEST LABELS ARE.
WE NEED TO DEFINE WHAT THE TEST LABELS ARE SO THAT WE'RE SURE THAT EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS IT'S A TECHNICAL TEST AND IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO BE USED MARKET-WISE OR IN PRODUCTION.
AND THEN, OF COURSE, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE THE RIGHT METHODOLOGY AND OBJECTIVES IN PLACE SO THAT WE CAN REVIEW THE TEST RESULTS AND EVALUATE THEM IN A WAY THAT MAKES SENSE FOR BOTH THE TECHNICAL AND POLICY COMMUNITY.
SO THAT BRINGS ME TO WHAT HAPPENED IN WELLINGTON.
AND I'M GUESSING I PROBABLY DON'T HAVE EVERYTHING ON THIS SLIDE ON WHAT TOOK PLACE IN IDN DISCUSSIONS IN WELLINGTON, BECAUSE IT WAS JUST ALL OVER THE PLACE.
AND I THOUGHT THAT WAS REALLY, REALLY GREAT.
MOST OF IT HAD TO DO WITH THE POLICY AREA.
AND IF YOU PARTICIPATED IN ANY OF THESE, YOU PROBABLY WILL HAVE NOTED THAT WE'VE PASSED BEYOND -- OOPS -- WE'VE PASSED BEYOND THE DISCUSSION ABOUT, YOU KNOW, SHOULD WE DO THE TECHNICAL TEST FIRST OR SHOULD WE DO THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT FIRST?
BOTH OF THESE THINGS ARE NOW RUNNING IN PARALLEL, WHICH IS REALLY GOOD AND I THINK IS GOING TO SPEED UP THIS PROCESS DRAMATICALLY.
JUST A SHORT OVERVIEW, I GUESS.
THE GNSO COUNCIL HAD AT LEAST TWO SESSIONS.
ONE WAS AN INFORMAL -- INFORMATIONAL SESSION ON THE TECHNICAL TEST.
AND THEN THAT WAS USED, THE INFORMATION IN THAT WAS USED TO HAVE OR CREATE AN INITIAL POLICY OVERVIEW FOR THE ISSUES REPORT THAT THE GNSO COUNCIL REQUESTED FROM ICANN STAFF.
THE CCNSO AND GNSO MET JOINTLY, AS CHRIS DISSPAIN AND BRUCE TONKIN REPORTED EARLIER.
THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT FORMATION OF A SHARED WORKING GROUP AND HAVE NOMINATED THREE CCNSO MEMBERS TO JOIN THE GNSO WHEN THEY INITIATE THEIR PDP ON THIS TOPIC.
THE ALAC HAD A WORK SESSION THAT HAD PRIMARILY A FOCUS OF END USER AND REGISTRANT ISSUES AND INFORMATION THAT INDIVIDUALS NEED TO KNOW WHEN THEY MAKE REGISTRATIONS.
THEY ALSO HAD SOME INFORMATION RELATED TO COUNTRIES WHERE THERE IS MULTIPLE SCRIPTS ACROSS THE LANGUAGES USED IN THOSE COUNTRIES.
AND THEY GOT AN UPDATE FROM THE PRESIDENT'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
AMONG THE GNSO CONSTITUENCIES, AT LEAST THE REGISTRIES, REGISTRARS, AND THE BUSINESS CONSTITUENCY HAD IDNS ON THEIR AGENDA.
THE SSAC, AS STEVE CROCKER MENTIONED, WAS DISCUSSING IDNS IN TERMS OF WHAT KIND OF SECURITY ISSUES ARE THERE IN RELATION TO ALTERNATE ROOTS OR ALTERNATE SETUP OF IDN TLDS.
THE ICANN BOARD AND THE ICANN BOARD AND THE GNSO JOINTLY MET AND HAD SOME DISCUSSION OF THE TECHNICAL TEST AND ALSO REVIEW OF THE INITIAL POLICY OVERVIEW.
AND SO THIS IS GOING TO BE MY LAST SLIDE.
AND JUST SO YOU KNOW, I'M NOT MAKING ANY PROMISES ABOUT WHAT'S ON THIS SLIDE, BUT HERE IS WHAT I AT LEAST WOULD LIKE TO SEE HAPPENING BY THE TIME THAT WE HIT MOROCCO.
MOROCCO, I AM ANTICIPATING IS GOING TO BE LIKE A BIG WORKSHOP.
AS YOU NOTICED, WELLINGTON WAS NOT A BIG WORKSHOP.
YOU KNOW, THE MAIN REASON FOR THAT WAS, WE HAD SO MUCH WORK THAT HAD TO BE DONE FOLLOWING THE VANCOUVER WORKSHOP THAT WE THOUGHT HERE IN WELLINGTON, IT WOULD BE MUCH MORE USEFUL AND EFFICIENT IF WE COULD SET UP SOME, LIKE, SMALL SESSIONS IN THE DIFFERENT CONSTITUENCIES AND DIFFERENT WORKING GROUPS THAT HAVE AN INTEREST IN THIS TOPIC TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY IS SORT OF LIKE ON THE SAME PAGE BY THE TIME THAT WE GET TO MOROCCO.
SO MOROCCO, MY HOPES ARE THAT WE WILL HAVE A FIRST DRAFT OF THE BCP READY TO REPLACE WHATEVER INCREMENTAL VERSION 2.X OF THE IDN GUIDELINES THAT WE MAY HAVE REACHED TO THIS POINT IN TIME.
I HOPE WE'LL HAVE A PROJECT PLAN READY FOR APPROVAL FOR THE TECHNICAL TEST AND THAT WE'LL BE ABLE TO INITIATE THE IMPLEMENTATION.
SPECIFICALLY, SOME OF THE PROCEDURES THAT NEEDS TO BE PLACE -- IN PLACE WITH IANA.
I ALSO HOPE THAT FROM THE PRESIDENT'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE, WE'LL HAVE SOME INITIAL POLICY INPUT TO THE GNSO AND THE CCNSO JOINT WORK ON THE POLICY AREAS.
IN THE POLICY AREA, WE SHOULD HAVE AN ISSUES REPORT, AS THE GNSO REQUESTED IN VANCOUVER, FROM STAFF, WITH A FULL POLICY OVERVIEW.
AND THEN EITHER ONE OF THE NEXT TWO LINES THERE, WHETHER IT BE INITIATION OF A PDP FOR IDNS OR IF IT'S -- OR IF IT'S MERGED INTO THE EXISTING PDP THAT'S GOING ON FOR INTRODUCTION OF NEW GTLDS RIGHT NOW, OR AT LEAST A DEFINITION OF HOW THOSE TWO WILL OVERLAP OR MERGE AT SOME POINT IN TIME.
AND THEN THE LAST THING FOR MOROCCO IS, OBVIOUSLY, BECAUSE OF THE REGIONAL PLACE, I'M SURE THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF REGIONAL FOCUS.
IN PARTICULAR, YOU MAY WANT TO NOTICE THAT AFRICA HAVE NAMED THE YEAR OF 2006 AS THEIR MULTILINGUAL YEAR.
SWEDEN HAVE DONE SOMETHING SIMILAR.
SO THERE'S LOTS OF INITIATIVES GOING ON IN THIS AREA OF THE WORLD.
AND I'M SURE WE'LL SEE SOME GOOD INPUT ON THAT.
SINCE WE'RE GOING TO BE IN MOROCCO, I ALSO HOPE THAT WE'LL HAVE PROGRESSED IN TERMS OF UPDATING THE RFCS FROM THE IETF SO THAT WE CAN UPDATE TO A NEW VERSION OF UNICODE, SO THAT CHARACTERS USED IN THAT REGION ARE ACTUALLY GOING TO BE IMPLEMENTABLE IN IDNS AT THE SECOND LEVEL.
AND THEN, OF COURSE, AT THE TOP LEVEL AS SOON AS WE GET TO THAT.
AND THAT IS THE LAST SLIDE FOR MY PRESENTATION.
I WANT TO MENTION ONE THING, BECAUSE I'VE BEEN ASKED THE QUESTION SO MANY TIMES THIS WEEK.
EVERYBODY SEEMS TO BE REALLY INTERESTED IN KNOWING WHEN ICANN IS OPEN FOR APPLICATIONS FOR IDN TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS.
AND IT'S -- UNFORTUNATELY, IT'S VERY DIFFICULT FOR ME TO MAKE ANY GUESSES ON IT AT THIS POINT IN TIME.
THE TECHNICAL TEST HAS TO BE DONE.
WE NEED TO KNOW HOW IT'S FUNCTIONING TECHNICALLY.
AND AS SOON AS THAT'S DONE, WE NEED TO PROVIDE THE INPUT INTO THE POLICY DEVELOPMENT BODIES.
SO AT THIS POINT IN TIME, I REALLY CAN'T MAKE ANY GUESSES IN TERMS OF TIMING.
BUT AS WE -- AS WE REACH MOROCCO, I HOPE SOME OF THESE THINGS ARE IN PLACE, AND I HOPE WE'LL BE ABLE TO GIVE -- WHAT SHOULD YOU CALL IT? -- A MUCH LONGER TIMELINE FOR WHEN THESE INITIATIVES CAN TAKE PLACE.
AND THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: THANK YOU, TINA.
QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD?
WE MOVE FORWARD TO THE IANA REPORT, DAVE CONRAD.
DAVE CONRAD.
THANK YOU, TINA.

>>DAVE CONRAD: I'M DAVE CONRAD, THE GENERAL MANAGER OF THE IANA, PRESENTING A STATUS UPDATE OF IANA ACTIVITIES.
A QUICK OVERVIEW.
TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT I HAD MENTIONED IN VANCOUVER, AN UPDATE ON THE STATUS OF THOSE ISSUES, PROVIDE A SET OF CURRENT STATISTICS, TALK ABOUT THE CURRENT IANA PROJECTS THAT ARE UNDER WAY, AND MENTION WHAT THE NEXT MEETING'S GOALS WILL BE FOR THE IANA.
IN VANCOUVER, I HAD MENTIONED A SET OF ISSUES THAT I HAD IDENTIFIED, HAVING ESSENTIALLY JUST RECENTLY JOINED IANA.
I JOINED IANA OFFICIALLY, I GUESS, ON NOVEMBER 1ST.
SO THAT HAD GIVEN ME AN ENTIRE MONTH TO UNDERSTAND EVERYTHING ABOUT IANA.
AND THESE ARE SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT I HAD IDENTIFIED.
THE FIRST ISSUE THAT I IDENTIFIED WAS THE CONSISTENT MANAGEMENT FOCUS AND PRIORITIZATION.
AS IT TURNED OUT, THAT BY THE TIME I HAD JOINED ICANN, THAT ISSUE HAD BEEN RESOLVED, AND I HAVE TAKEN GREAT ADVANTAGE OF THAT, ALTHOUGH AT TIMES HAVING YOUR BOSS BE YOUR -- BE A TIGHT FOCUS ON YOU IS A BIT OF A CHALLENGE.
UNDERSTAFFING.
WE HAVE BEEN IN THE PROCESS OF BRINGING IN PEOPLE TO IANA.
WE'RE STILL A BIT LIGHT ON THAT.
I'M LOOKING FOR TWO ADDITIONAL STAFF MEMBERS FOR THE IANA.
INFRASTRUCTURE WITHIN THE IANA HAS BEEN LACKING.
IT IS BEING IMPROVED FOR GETTING SIGNIFICANT HELP FROM THE -- IN THE I.T. DEPARTMENT WITHIN ICANN, WHICH ALSO WAS UNDERSTAFFED.
AND THAT'S BEING IMPROVED.
THE TICKETING SYSTEM, WHEN I JOINED IANA, THERE WERE ACTUALLY EITHER NO TICKETING SYSTEMS IN USE OR TWO TICKETING SYSTEMS.
WE HAVE SINCE REVISED THAT AND HAVE MIGRATED TO A SINGLE TICKETING SYSTEM THAT'S WORKING QUITE WELL.
INTERNALLY WITHIN IANA, WE ACTUALLY HAVE A VERY LARGE NUMBER OF REGISTRIES, AND THOSE REGISTRIES ARE ALL IN DIFFERENT DATABASES OF ONE FORM OR ANOTHER.
OUR INTENT IS TO MIGRATE TO A SINGLE DATABASE SYSTEM, JUST FOR CONSISTENCY'S SAKE AND FOR SIMPLICITY'S SAKE FROM OUR END.
WE HAVE NOT YET ADDRESSED THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE, AS THAT IS GOING TO BE A FUNCTION OF SOME AUTOMATION PROCESSES THAT WE'RE UNDERTAKING WITHIN THE IANA.
THE IANA DOES HAVE A LARGE NUMBER OF FAIRLY COMPLICATED PROCESSES TO DEAL WITH RESOURCE ALLOCATION.
WE'RE TRYING TO SIMPLIFY THOSE WHERE WE CAN.
HOWEVER, THERE ARE CONSTRAINTS ON WHAT WE CAN DO IN TERMS OF SIMPLIFICATION, BECAUSE THE COMMUNITY HAS IMPOSED CERTAIN POLICIES THAT RESULT IN CERTAIN PROCESSES BEING MANDATORY.
WE ARE, AS I'LL TALK A BIT ABOUT LATER, WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF DOCUMENTING ALL THE EXISTING PROCESSES AND WILL BE PUTTING THOSE ON THE WEB.
COMMENTS THAT ANYONE MIGHT HAVE ON HOW TO IMPROVE THOSE PROCESSES WOULD BE GREATLY APPRECIATED.
WHERE WAS I?
OKAY.
WE HAVE, AS I MENTIONED, SOME -- IN THE PAST, WE'VE HAD FEW EXTERNAL PROCESSES DOCUMENTS ON THE WEB THAT PEOPLE COULD LOOK AT.
WE'RE -- WE HAVE DOCUMENTS INTERNALLY, BUT THEY'RE CURRENTLY SORT OF INCONSISTENT.
AND OUR INTENT IS TO PUBLISH THOSE.
WE'RE NOT QUITE THERE YET.
A LARGE NUMBER OF OUR PROCESSES HAVE EXCEPTIONS THAT ARE CAUSED BY THE DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS FROM THE VARIOUS COMMUNITIES.
WE'RE TRYING TO ADDRESS THOSE AS WELL.
BUT THAT HAS COMPLICATIONS IN THAT PEOPLE HAVE IMPOSED THESE EXCEPTIONS FOR PARTICULAR REASONS, AND THERE'S NOT A WHOLE LOT WE CAN DO TO CHANGE THE CUSTOMERS' REQUIREMENTS.
WE STILL HAVE A BACKLOG OF REQUESTS.
WE HAVE KNOCKED THEM DOWN QUITE A BIT.
IN SOME CASES, IN SOME RESOURCES, THE BACKLOGS HAVE INCREASED DUE TO SOME STAFFING-RELATED ISSUES, UNDERSTAFFING, THAT HAS SINCE BEEN ADDRESSED.
WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF TRYING TO AUTOMATE SEVERAL OF OUR SYSTEMS.
THAT AUTOMATION IS AT VARIOUS STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT, EITHER IN DESIGN OR IMPLEMENTATION, OR WE'VE CHOSEN VENDORS.
THAT'S ALSO SOMETHING THAT'S BEING IMPROVED.
I NOTICE THAT THERE WAS SIGNIFICANT DIFFICULTY IN SOME CASES IN COMMUNICATING WITH OUR CUSTOMERS.
WE HAVE INSTITUTED A PROCESS TO DESIGN A NEW WEB PAGE TO TRY TO IMPROVE COMMUNICATION VIA THE WEB.
WE'RE ALSO LOOKING AT MECHANISMS TO IMPROVE COMMUNICATION INTERNALLY, I.E., VIA E-MAIL WITH ORGANIZATIONS, PROVIDING FORUMS THAT SORT OF THING.
THOSE ARE NOT YET UP, BUT SHOULD BE IN THE RELATIVELY NEAR FUTURE.
IN TERMS OF STATISTICS AND METRICS, WE HAVE BEEN -- IN THE PAST, THERE WERE SOME ISSUES IN WHICH DATA WASN'T COLLECTED CONSISTENTLY.
AND AS A RESULT, IT WAS DIFFICULT TO TRACK METRICS.
RT HAS HELPED OUT -- THE TICKETING SYSTEM THAT WE'RE USING, HAS HELPED OUT SIGNIFICANTLY.
AND WE'RE NOW LOOKING TO ADD ADDITIONAL DETAIL INTO WHAT INFORMATION IS TRACKED.
AND WITH REGARDS TO METRICS, WE DO HAVE A REASONABLE BASELINE ESTABLISHED NOW AND CAN IMPROVE BASED OFF OF THAT BASELINE.
SO TALKING A BIT ABOUT SOME STATISTICS, THIS IS THE ROOT ZONE MANAGEMENT REQUESTS SINCE JULY OF 2005.
WE HAVE BEEN SEEING A GRADUAL DECREASE IN THE QUEUE.
THERE WAS A SORT OF SPIKE UP AROUND DECEMBER DUE TO, AGAIN, SOME STAFFING-RELATED ISSUES.
BUT WE HAVE IMPROVED THE PROCESSING TIMES, SO THAT PROCESSING IS NOW CONSISTENTLY, IN MARCH, IT'S ALSO CONSISTENTLY ABOVE THE TIME THAT IT TAKES FOR NEW REQUESTS TO COME IN, SO WE'RE ACTUALLY IMPROVING THE QUEUE AND REDUCING IT IN SIZE.
PORT REQUESTS.
THIS IS AN IETF RESOURCE THAT WE ALLOCATE.
PORTS ARE THE SERVICES, FOR EXAMPLE, HTTP IS PORT 80.
AS YOU CAN TELL, THERE WAS A FAIRLY SIGNIFICANT BACKLOG, AND WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF REDUCING THAT.
MY EXPECTATION IS THAT BY THE END OF APRIL, WE WILL ACTUALLY HAVE REDUCED THIS PARTICULAR QUEUE TO ZERO.
INTERNET DRAFTS.
THE -- ONE OF THE IANA'S TASKS IS TO ACTUALLY REVIEW EVERY INTERNET DRAFT THAT COMES OUT OF THE IETF FOR WHAT ARE CALLED IANA CONSIDERATIONS, THINGS THAT THE IETF DRAFT IS REQUIRING OR THE FUTURE RFC IS REQUIRING THE IANA TO DO.
AS A RESULT, WE HAVE TO READ EVERY ONE OF THE DRAFTS THAT THE IETF PRODUCES AND COMMENT ON THEM.
RIGHT NOW, WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF REDUCING THE QUEUE.
AND THIS, WHICH IS ACTUALLY FAIRLY LABOR-INTENSIVE TASK, IS IMPROVING SIGNIFICANTLY, AS WE NOW HAVE ADDITIONAL PEOPLE WHO WILL BE REVIEWING THE DRAFTS, INSTEAD OF RELYING ON ESSENTIALLY ONE INDIVIDUAL.
SECOND COUPLE OF GRAPHS INDICATE WHERE THE QUEUES ARE INCREASING.
BUT, TO BE HONEST, I'M NOT ENTIRELY WORRIED ABOUT THESE, AS THEY ARE ACTUALLY IN THE PROCESS OF SOME LEVELS OF AUTOMATION.
PROTOCOL PARAMETER REQUESTS HAVE BEEN INCREASING OVER TIME, BUT WE ARE IMPROVING THE ABILITY TO RESPOND TO THESE RELATIVELY QUICKLY.
AND PEN REQUESTS, WHICH ARE -- THE REQUESTS THAT WE RECEIVE THE GREATEST NUMBER OF, ALTHOUGH THEY'RE VERY EASY TO PROCESS, TOOK THE BIGGEST HIT WHEN WE HAD A STAFFING CHANGE AROUND THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR, AND THEN SUBSEQUENTLY BROUGHT IN SOMEONE, TRAINED THEM.
AND THEN THAT PERSON LEFT, TOOK ANOTHER JOB, BECAUSE HE WANTED TO PRODUCE MOVIES INSTEAD OF WORK AT IANA.
I CAN'T UNDERSTAND THAT MYSELF.
RESULTED IN THE QUEUE SORT OF GROWING FAIRLY QUICKLY.
WE HAVE ALMOST AT -- HAD INTENDED AT THIS MEETING, BUT IT TURNED OUT, AS IN MOST SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT, THINGS TAKE A LITTLE LONGER THAN ANTICIPATED TO, ANNOUNCE THE AUTOMATION FOR PEN REQUESTS.
BUT I DO EXPECT THAT BY THE END OF NEXT MONTH TO GO INTO ALPHA TESTING.
SPEAKING OF THAT, THE IANA PROJECTS, WE CURRENTLY HAVE A LARGE NUMBER OF PROJECTS THAT ARE EITHER BEING CONSIDERED OR ARE BEING IMPLEMENTED.
AS MIGHT BE OBVIOUS, WHILE WE'RE DOING IMPLEMENTATION OF SOME OF THESE FUNCTIONS, WE HAVE THE EXISTING TIME TO PROCESS THINGS PROBABLY WON'T IMPROVE.
BUT WE ARE WORKING AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE TO ADDRESS THESE ISSUES.
THE PRIMARY GOAL IS TO IMPROVE IANA'S PERFORMANCE, RESPONSIVENESS, AND CONSISTENCY, TO PROVIDE BETTER SERVICES TO OUR COMMUNITY.
THIS TABLE SORT OF LISTS THE MAJOR PROJECTS THAT WE HAVE OUTSTANDING.
ONE OF THE REQUESTS WE HAD, PRIMARILY FROM THE CCNSO, WAS TO HAVE A 24-BY-7-BY-52 AVAILABILITY.
WE ACTUALLY HAVE IMPLEMENTED THAT VIA CALL CENTER AND HAVE SELECTED A VENDOR.
BUT IT HAS TAKEN LONGER THAN ANTICIPATED TO GET A TELEPHONE LINE INTO IANA FOR THIS PARTICULAR SERVICE.
WE'RE CURRENTLY WAITING ON OUR TELEPHONE LINE PROVIDER.
I HAD ALSO HOPED TO ANNOUNCE THAT FUNCTIONALITY AVAILABILITY HERE.
BUT IT TURNS OUT IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL APRIL.
WE'VE TAKEN A LARGE AMOUNT OF DATA THAT EXISTED IN PAPER FORM WITHIN THE IANA AND HAVE ARCHIVED IT.
WE'VE ACTUALLY PUT IT ONTO DVDS CURRENTLY.
OUR INTENT IS HOPEFULLY BY MAY TO HAVE OCRED THAT DATA AND MAKE IT AVAILABLE FOR INTERNAL USE.
SOME OF THE DATA IS CONFIDENTIAL IN NATURE, BASICALLY REQUESTS THAT CAME A LONG TIME AGO AND WE DON'T KNOW IF THE PEOPLE WHO SENT THOSE REQUESTS WOULD WANT THEM PUBLISHED.
BUT IT WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR SEARCHING AND FOR REFERENCE INTERNALLY WITHIN IANA.
ONE OF THE TOPICS OF DISCUSSION WITHIN THE RIR COMMUNITY RIGHT NOW IS THE USE OF X.509 IN A WAY TO AID IN THE -- SECURING THE ROUTING INFRASTRUCTURE, AND IN ADDITION, TO ADDRESS SOME CONCEPTS OF VERIFIABLE -- I DON'T WANT TO SAY "OWNERSHIP" -- IDENTITY OF MAINTENANCE OF RESOURCES THAT ARE ALLOCATED.
AND THAT WOULD INVOLVE THE USE OF X.509 CERTIFICATES.
AND ONE OF THE AREAS IN WHICH IANA IS INVOLVED IS TRYING TO FIND OUT IF IT MAKES SENSE FOR IANA TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS OR WHETHER THE RIRS CAN ACTUALLY DO THIS FUNCTION WITHOUT THE IANA.
AS SUCH, WE REALLY DON'T HAVE AN AVAILABILITY DATE ON THAT.
IT IS SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE ONGOING RESEARCH INTO.
CURRENTLY, THE IANA DOES DNS SERVER VALIDATION OR VERIFICATION MANUALLY.
IF SOMEONE DOES A ROOT SERVER CHANGE, WE ACTUALLY BY HAND GO IN AND VERIFY THAT THE TLD SERVER IS UP AND RUNNING AND ANSWERING CORRECTLY.
WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF AUTOMATING THAT AND ARE REVIEWING REQUIREMENTS.
AS STEVE MENTIONED, DNSSEC IS A TOPIC OF DISCUSSION IN MANY PLACES.
AND IT IS A LARGE PROJECT.
WE'RE LOOKING, AT THE IANA, BECAUSE WE ARE AT THE ROOT OF THE DNS, WE WILL HAVE A ROLE.
WE'RE RIGHT NOW ATTEMPTING TO DEFINE WHAT THE ACTUAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE IANA WILL BE IN THAT CONTEXT AND EVALUATING SOME SOFTWARE THAT WILL ENABLE US TO PERFORM THE ROLES THAT HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED.
WE'RE UNDERTAKING A PROJECT TO CLEAN UP THE IPV4 ADDRESS ALLOCATION REGISTRY.
THE ADDRESS REGISTRY THAT YOU CAN FIND ON IANA'S WEB SITE IS KNOWN TO BE OUT OF DATE IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.
FOR EXAMPLE, THE DIGITAL EQUIPMENT CORPORATION DOES NOT ACTUALLY EXIST AS AN ENTITY ANYMORE.
AND WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF CLEANING UP THAT REGISTRY.
WE HAVE MODIFIED THE REGISTRY, BUT WE NEED TO OBTAIN CONFIRMATION FROM VARIOUS ORGANIZATIONS THAT THE DATA IS CORRECT THAT WE HAVE MODIFIED THINGS INTO.
THAT'S TAKING LONGER THAN I HAD ANTICIPATED, AND, UNFORTUNATELY, IMPLIES THAT IT WILL CONTINUE TO TAKE LONGER THAN I HAD ANTICIPATED.
SOMETIMES PEOPLE DON'T ANSWER E-MAIL.
IMAGINE THAT.
WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPING MECHANISMS BY WHICH WE CAN PUBLICLY REPORT DATA THAT IS COLLECTED, PERFORMANCE DATA AND OTHER DATA ASSOCIATED WITH IANA.
INITIALLY, WE HAD LOOKED AT A COMMERCIAL PACKAGE TO PROVIDE THAT SERVICE.
UNFORTUNATELY, DUE TO SOME UNUSUAL WAYS IN WHICH DATA IS STORED AND KEPT, IT TURNED OUT THAT THE COMMERCIAL PACKAGE WAS NOT SUITABLE, AND WE'RE NOW USING AN INTERNALLY -- ACTUALLY, A TOOL THAT WAS DEVELOPED ELSEWHERE THAT WE HAVE BROUGHT INTERNAL AND ARE IN THE PROCESS OF MODIFYING TO MEET OUR REQUIREMENTS.
OOPS.
MY APOLOGIES.
AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF MODIFYING OUR WORK FLOWS TO COLLECT MORE DETAILED STATISTICS, TO HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF WHERE IANA'S TIME IS SPENT, AND TO PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION TO OUR COMMUNITY.
WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF INSTITUTING A CUSTOMER SURVEY.
WE HAVE ACTUALLY SELECTED THE VENDOR TO DO THE SURVEY AND ARE PLANNING ON DOING A PILOT PROJECT IN THE VERY NEAR FUTURE.
WE'RE ACTUALLY HAVING TO DO SOME INTERNAL FINAL APPROVAL THINGS. AND THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS THAT I WAS NOT ABLE TO ANNOUNCE IT AT THIS TIME.
BUT IT WILL BE ANNOUNCED BY THE NEXT MEETING, HOPEFULLY.
A MAJOR PROJECT THAT WE ARE NOW IN A POSITION TO ACCEPT INPUT ON IS REVISING THE IANA WEB PAGE.
PROBABLY THE MOST CONSISTENT COMPLAINT THAT I'VE RECEIVED SINCE BEING AT IANA IS THAT OUR WEB PAGE MAKES IT VERY DIFFICULT TO FIND PRETTY MUCH ANYTHING.
AND I HAVE EXPERIENCED THAT FRUSTRATION MYSELF ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS.
WE ACTUALLY HAVE COMPLETED THE FIRST DRAFT OF THE NEW IANA WEB PAGE, AND WE WILL BE SOLICITING INPUT.
AND, FINALLY, THE LAST PAGE PROJECT I WANTED TO TOUCH ON IS THE PEN AUTOMATION, PEN, OR PRIVATE ENTERPRISE NUMBERS, THEY'RE USED IN SOFTWARE FOR NETWORK MANAGEMENT, OR IN DEVICES FOR THE SAME PURPOSE.
WE HAVE DEVELOPED SOFTWARE TO AUTOMATE THAT PROCESS.
AND THAT'S HOW WE WILL BE ADDRESSING THE LARGISH QUEUE THAT HAS DISTINGUISHED IN THAT PARTICULAR RESOURCE.
THIS PAGE ACTUALLY SHOWS THE DRAFT PROPOSED IANA HOME PAGE.
THAT URL IS LIVE.
IF YOU GO THERE, YOU WILL SEE A SORT OF A DESCRIPTION OF WHAT'S -- WHAT WE'RE INTENDING, AS OPPOSED TO THIS PAGE, IF YOU CLICK ON THE LINK THERE, YOU WILL BE ABLE TO GO TO THIS PAGE.
AT THIS STAGE, IT'S -- THERE ARE PORTIONS THAT ARE STILL INCOMPLETE.
THE IDEA WAS TO TRY TO GET INPUT ON THE STRUCTURE AS OPPOSED TO ALL THE CONTENT, BECAUSE WE KNOW THE CONTENT IS NOT FULLY THERE.
BUT THE EASE OF USE, THE ABILITY TO FIND THINGS, THE ABILITY TO ACTUALLY USE THE WEB PAGE FOR WHATEVER NEEDS YOU MIGHT HAVE ARE AREAS IN WHICH WE WOULD VERY MUCH APPRECIATE INPUT.
SO IF YOU HAVE A CHANCE AND HAVE INTEREST, PLEASE TAKE A LOOK AT THE SITE.
AND INPUT IS CURRENTLY DIRECTED AT KIM DAVIES.
HE HAS PUT HIS E-MAIL ADDRESS ON THE -- SORT OF THE ENTRY PAGE.
AND PLEASE FEEL FREE TO SEND HIM E-MAIL ON ANY INPUT YOU MIGHT HAVE.
HE DOESN'T THINK HE'S GOING TO GET OVERWHELMED.
WE'LL SEE.
NEXT MEETING GOALS, AS I MENTIONED, WE'RE ATTEMPTING TO BRING IN TWO ADDITIONAL STAFF, AN IETF LIAISON, SOMEONE WHO WILL WORK CLOSELY WITH THE IETF TO ENSURE THAT THEIR NEEDS ARE MET, AS WELL AS A NUMBERS LIAISON, SOMEONE WHO WILL BE WORKING WITHIN THE RIR COMMUNITY TO ENSURE THEIR NEEDS ARE MET.
WE ARE PLANNING ON PUTTING MANY OF THESE PROJECTS INTO LIMITED PRODUCTION BY THE NEXT MEETING.
WE INTEND ON CLEARING THE CURRENT REQUEST BACKLOGS.
I HAD HOPED TO ACTUALLY HAVE THEM CLEARED NOW.
BUT AS I MENTIONED, THERE WERE SOME ISSUES REGARDING STAFFING THAT HAVE RESULTED IN DELAYS.
I DON'T ANTICIPATE ANY DIFFICULTY MEETING THIS GOAL BY MARRAKESH.
WE ARE UPDATING AND WILL BE PUBLICLY DOCUMENTING THE IANA RESOURCE ALLOCATION PROCESSES.
WE WILL BE PUTTING THOSE DOCUMENTS UP ON THE WEB.
AND IF ANYONE HAS ANY COMMENTS ON THEM, WE WILL, AGAIN, PROVIDE SOME MECHANISM BY WHICH INPUT CAN BE PROVIDED.
WE HAVE SOME HISTORICAL DATA WITHIN THE TICKETING SYSTEM.
THE OLDER TICKETING SYSTEM THAT WE NEED TO MIGRATE, AND COMPLETION OF THAT BY MARRAKESH IS ONE OF THE GOALS.
AND THEN, FINALLY, BASED ON INPUT THAT WE RECEIVE FOR THE NEW WEB PAGE, WE ACTUALLY HOPE TO GO LIVE WITH THE PROPOSED WEB SITE THAT -- TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO, YOU KNOW, SORT OF PUT IN THEIR LAST SCREAMS OF OUTRAGE OR SCREAMS OF JOY.
WITH THAT, I WILL GIVE IT BACK TO YOU.

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: THANK YOU, DAVID.

>>SUSAN CRAWFORD: ALEX, I HOPE THAT WE WILL BE ABLE TO GO ON TO THE PUBLIC MIKE SESSION RELATIVELY QUICKLY.

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: YEP.

>>SUSAN CRAWFORD: OKAY.

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: THAT'S EXACTLY WHERE WE ARE.
WE ARE INVITING PUBLIC COMMENT NOW ON THIS LAST SET OF REPORTS.
AND SINCE THIS WILL BE ALSO THE CLOSING OF THE PUBLIC FORUM, ON ANY MATTERS THAT ARE OUTSTANDING.
I WILL TRY TO LIMIT THE TIME FOR PARTICIPATION TO VERY BRIEF PARTICIPATIONS SO THAT WE CAN HAVE ROOM FOR EVERYBODY.
THOMAS NARTEN, HAD YOU YOUR HAND UP.

>>THOMAS NARTEN: WHILE PEOPLE ARE RUNNING UP TO THE MICROPHONE, LET ME SAY THANKS TO DAVID, HIGH, DAVID.
AND ALL THE IANA STAFF.
BECAUSE I THINK THIS IS A GOOD REPORT AND I LIKE TO SEE THE PROGRESS THAT'S BEEN GOING ON AND SO FORTH.
AND ONE OF THE THINGS I REALLY LIKE IS THE AMOUNT OF DETAIL YOU'RE PROVIDING ON WHAT YOU'RE DOING AND WHAT YOU'VE BEEN DOING AND WHAT YOUR GOALS ARE GOING FORWARD.
SO I'M REALLY LOOKING FORWARD TO HEARING THAT ALL THE GOALS HAVE BEEN ACHIEVED BY MARRAKESH, AS WE ALL ARE.
AND I ALSO THINK IT'S WORTH POINTING OUT, I THINK THIS IS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF SOME OF THE TRANSPARENCY THAT WE CAN GET INTO WHAT'S GOING ON HERE.
AND THIS IS A GOOD EXAMPLE WITH CONCRETE DETAILS.
SO THANKS FOR THAT.

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: ANY OTHER COMMENTS?
PROFESSOR DR. JOHN KLENSIN.

>>JOHN KLENSIN: DAVID, A QUESTION ABOUT THE NEW TROUBLE TICKETING ENVIRONMENT.

>>DAVID CONRAD: IT'S NOT TROUBLE. IT'S REQUESTS. THERE'S A DIFFERENCE.

>>JOHN KLENSIN: NEW REQUEST TICKETING ENVIRONMENT.
UNDER THE REGIME OF YOUR PREDECESSOR, THERE WAS A GREAT DEAL OF TALK ABOUT A GREAT UNIVERSAL ICANN TAILORED TROUBLE TICKET ENVIRONMENT ABOUT WHICH GREAT DEALS OF TIME AND MONEY WERE APPARENTLY SPENT, AND A GREAT MANY EXCUSES WERE GENERATED ABOUT WHY THINGS WEREN'T GETTING DONE BECAUSE THAT WASN'T FINISHED.
HAS THAT PROJECT BEEN ABANDONED?

>>DAVID CONRAD: IT HASN'T BEEN ABANDONMENT.
THE UNDERLYING MECHANISMS BY WHICH THE TICKETS ARE BEING ACCEPTED AND PROPAGATED AROUND HAS CHANGED.
THERE'S -- THE PROJECT -- COMING INTO THIS, I AM NOT FULLY AWARE OF THE DETAILS. BUT --
(STATIC)

>>DAVID CONRAD: THERE WE GO. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE SYSTEM THAT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED IS ACTUALLY STILL UNDER IMPLEMENTATION. WHAT I HAVE DONE WITHIN IANA IS, I AM ACTUALLY USING THE LOWER-LAYER MECHANISMS. SO I KNOW THAT, FOR EXAMPLE, THERE'S MECHANISMS TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO MANAGEMENT ABOUT WHERE PROCESSES ARE, AND THAT HAS ACTUALLY JUST RECENTLY MOVED FORWARD TO A POINT WHERE IT'S ACTUALLY USABLE BY MANAGEMENT.
BUT IT WILL BE RESIDED ON TOP OF THE R.T. TICKETING SYSTEM THAT WE ARE USING.

>>JOHN KLENSIN: VERY PLEASED TO HEAR ABOUT THE PROGRESS.

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: ANY OTHER SPEAKERS ON THIS LAST SET OF REPORTS?
STEVE CONTE, DO YOU HAVE ANY INPUT THROUGH E-MAIL OR OTHER DISTANCE?

>>STEVE CONTE: OTHER THAN WHAT CAME IN EARLIER, WHICH WE POSTED ON THE SCHEDULE AS AN ARCHIVE, THERE'S BEEN NO NEW E-MAIL.

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
SO I THINK WE ARE READY TO ADJOURN THIS MEETING.
WE WILL MEET AGAIN FOR THE PUBLIC SESSION.
IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMENT COMING?
THEN WE ARE READY, AND WE WILL MEET TOMORROW, 8:30, FOR THE PUBLIC SESSION.

>>ELLIOT NOSS: WAIT, WAIT. IT'S OPEN MIKE.

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: THAT'S WHAT I MEANT. I AM CALLING FOR COMMENTS.

>>ELLIOT NOSS: NO. YOU SAID ON THESE REPORTS.

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: SORRY. OR ON ANY OTHER SUBJECT, FORWARD. APOLOGIES.

>>ELLIOT NOSS: OKAY. I HAVE SPOKEN TWICE ALREADY, AND I'LL BE VERY CLEAR BEFORE I MAKE THIS LAST SET OF COMMENTS THAT WHAT I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT NOW IS REALLY THE ONLY THING THAT WAS IMPORTANT THAT I WAS ABLE TO COMMUNICATE TO THE BOARD IN THIS MEETING.
EVERYTHING THAT I HAVE SAID TO DATE IS REALLY FUNCTIONING FROM OR ARISING FROM THINGS THAT HAVE HAPPENED DURING THE MEETING AND SINCE I HAVE BEEN HERE.
WHAT I WANT TO SPEAK ABOUT NOW IS NEW GTLDS, NEW TOP-LEVEL DOMAINS, AND THE PROCESS FOR GETTING THERE, AND WHAT THE BOARD CAN DO TO HELP THAT PROCESS.
I'M GOING TO START BY SAYING THAT WHETHER YOU WERE FOR -- AS A BOARD MEMBER, WHETHER YOU VOTED IN FAVOR OF THE .COM SETTLEMENT OR YOU VOTED AGAINST THE .COM SETTLEMENT, WHAT YOU CLEARLY SIGNALED WITH THAT DEBATE AND DISCUSSION AND AGREEMENT WAS THE DESIRE FOR ICANN TO BE LESS OF A REGULATOR. LESS OF A REGULATOR AS IT RELATES TO PRICE AND LESS OF A REGULATOR IN GENERAL.
I STRONGLY SUPPORT THAT POSITION AND URGE YOU ALL TO BE CONSISTENT IN THAT POSITION.
AND THE ONLY WAY TO DO THAT IS THROUGH A SIGNIFICANT LIBERALIZATION OF NEW GTLDS.
A SIMPLE APPROACH, OR AN EXTREMELY LIMITED APPROACH THAT REQUIRES A LOT OF OVERSIGHT AND DECISIONS LEAVES THE ICANN COMMUNITY IN THE REGULATION BUSINESS. BUT I THINK RIGHTLY THE BOARD CAN SAY THERE'S A PDP PROCESS AND IT'S NOT OURS AND WE'LL WAIT TO SEE WHAT COMES OUT OF THE GNSO. AND THAT'S GREAT.
AND THERE ARE A NUMBER OF VERY SPECIFIC THINGS THAT YOU CAN ALL DO TO FACILITATE THAT.
FIRST, WE HEARD WITH THE GNSO REPORT THAT THEIR FACE-TO-FACE MEETINGS WERE EXTREMELY PRODUCTIVE.
YOU CAN FACILITATE AND MAKE THOSE FACE-TO-FACE MEETINGS EASIER TO HAVE AND MORE FREQUENT IN THIS SPECIFIC CONTEXT IF THE STAFF PROVIDES FUNDING FOR THEM.
SECOND, YOU CAN SET CLEAR PARAMETERS AND GUIDELINES FOR HOW YOU'D LIKE TO SEE THIS PROCESS CONDUCTED. YOU CAN DO THAT. IN FACT, I'D ARGUE YOU HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO DO THAT FOR BOTH STAFF AND STAFF'S INVOLVEMENT, AND FOR THE GNSO AND FOR THE GNSO'S PROCESS.
AND THIRD AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, YOU CAN LEAD THROUGH MORAL SUASION. I REFERRED TO THIS IN THE REGISTRAR BOARD DISCUSSION.
ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS WITH ANY LEADERSHIP POSITION AND WITH THIS BOARD POSITION IN PARTICULAR, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE STAFF IS OPERATING IN WHAT, IN MY VIEW, IS A FAIRLY OPAQUE MANNER, IS TO BE THE PUBLIC FACE OF THIS ORGANIZATION, AND OF THIS PROCESS AND TO GET OUT FRONT AND TO LEAD WITH YOUR WORDS AND WITH YOUR IDEALS AND WITH YOUR THOUGHTS, AND SO I URGE YOU TO BE SUPPORTIVE IN ALL OF THOSE WAYS.
AND I ALSO REALLY REQUEST -- I APPRECIATE THAT ALL OF YOU ARE FORCED TO CONSUME MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF INFORMATION, SPECIFICALLY IN THESE ROLES, AND OF COURSE IN ALL OF YOUR OTHER ROLES. BUT THERE ARE POSITIONS ON THIS OUT THERE.
WE HAVE CERTAINLY PUT FORWARD A VERY SPECIFIC PROPOSAL. YOU CAN FIND IT AT DNSPOLICY.ORG. IT'S A WIKI. WE WOULD LOVE PARTICIPATION FROM ANY AND ALL OF YOU.
AND THIS, LIKE ANY COMMUNITY-BASED, BOTTOM-UP ENDEAVOR WILL BE BETTER AND BETTER AND BETTER THE MORE INVOLVEMENT THERE IS. THERE'S PEOPLE ON THIS BOARD WHO WOULD BE EXCELLENT AT CONTRIBUTING TO ISSUES AROUND DEVELOPING COUNTRIES AS THAT RELATES TO NEW GTLDS. THERE WOULD BE PEOPLE ON THIS BOARD WHO WOULD MAKE EXCELLENT CONTRIBUTIONS AS IT RELATES TO DIFFICULT AREAS LIKE SUBJECT PLACE NAMES.
THERE WOULD BE PEOPLE ON THIS BOARD WHO WOULD BE EXCELLENT AT CONTRIBUTING TO OTHER POLICY ISSUES LIKE IP ISSUES.
IF WE ALL THINK THROUGH THIS TOGETHER AND WORK ON THIS TOGETHER, IT WILL BE A MORE EFFECTIVE, EFFICIENT, PRODUCTIVE, TRANSPARENT PROCESS, AND YOU AND WE WILL ALL BE SEEN TO BE DOING EXACTLY THE WORK WE SHOULD BE DOING INSTEAD OF THINKING ABOUT MORE EXISTENTIAL NAVEL GAZING FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM.

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: THANK YOU. I WANT TO ASK, ARE THERE COMMENTS? YES.

>>NJERI RIONGE: I'D JUST LIKE TO SORT OF MAKE A COMMENT FROM WHERE I SIT AND PROBABLY EVEN SPEAK FOR SOME OF US, NOT ALL OF US.
IT IS IMPORTANT FOR YOU AND THE REST OF THE COMMUNITY TO ACTUALLY RECOGNIZE THE FACT THAT WE ARE LISTENING. WE HAVE HEARD YOU. WE HAVE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT WE DO HAVE A COUPLE OF CHALLENGES. WE ALSO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WE HAVE SOME MAJOR AREAS OF IMPROVEMENT. BUT WE WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT DESPITE ALL THAT, THAT MOST OF THE WORK AND MOST OF THE AREAS THAT WE ARE CONCENTRATING ON ARE WORKING TO A BETTER ICANN. AND PARTICULARLY TO MEET THE OBJECTIVE OF HAVING AN ORGANIZATION OF EXCELLENCE.
THOSE ARE NOT EASY TASKS IN THEMSELVES.
ICANN IS A SIX-YEAR -- SEVEN-YEAR ORGANIZATION. NOT ONLY IS IT JUST A YOUNG ORGANIZATION, BUT IT'S HIGHLY TECHNICAL IN ITS NATURE. HOWEVER, ALL ITS OUTPUT ARE RELATED TO PEOPLE, AND PEOPLE AND TECHNICAL THINGS ARE NOT AN EASY THING TO BRING TOGETHER.
SO WE DO APPRECIATE AND RECOGNIZE YOUR INPUTS, AND WE ARE PASSIONATE ENOUGH TO KNOW THAT WE ARE GOING TO BE DOING SOMETHING ABOUT THOSE THINGS GOING FORWARD.
THANKS.

>>ELLIOT NOSS: THANK YOU. AND NJERI IF I DIDN'T BELIEVE YOU WERE LISTENING, I WOULDN'T STILL BE HERE.

>>SUSAN CRAWFORD: CHAIRMAN.

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: SUSAN.

>>SUSAN CRAWFORD: I WANT TO UNDERSCORE NJERI'S TERRIFIC COMMENT. WE ARE LISTENING HARD.
I AM WORRIED, THOUGH, THAT YOU ARE HAVING TO STAND UP A LOT HERE. I AM DISTRESSED THAT WE MAY NOT HAVE DONE OUR JOB BY GIVING ALL THESE REPORTS, TAKING UP A LOT OF TIME. MAYBE THERE WOULD BE MORE PUBLIC COMMENT IF WE SET THINGS UP DIFFERENTLY. WE ARE ALSO LISTENING TO THAT, TRYING TO BE MORE TRANSPARENT, MORE AVAILABLE FOR THIS KIND OF INTERACTION WHICH IS SO IMPORTANT. THANKS.

>>ELLIOT NOSS: BRIEFLY, PERHAPS REVERSING THE POSITIONING. THE NOMCOM AND GNSO HAD TO LEAVE FOR A LUNCH. VINT HAD TO LEAVE FOR A LUNCH, FOR GOODNESS SAKE, AND OR A MEETING AND I APPRECIATE THAT. PERHAPS THE PUBLIC MIGHT, PRECEDING BEFORE A FEW REPORTS, MIGHT BE MORE EFFECTIVE.

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: NEXT PERSON IN THE QUEUE. I WILL LIMIT THE PARTICIPATION -- HOW MANY PEOPLE RIGHT NOW ARE IN THE QUEUE. CAN YOU SORT OF MAKE YOURSELVES MANIFEST?
I WILL TRY TO LIMIT THE PARTICIPATIONS TO THREE MINUTES SO WE CAN BE DONE BY 2:00. IS THAT FAIR ENOUGH?

>>TONY HOLMES: I'D LIKE TO MAKE A STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE ISP CONSTITUENCY, SOME OF WHICH I THINK TOUCHES ON SOME OF THE ISSUES WHICH WERE JUST DISCUSSED.
DURING THE ICANN MEETING, THE ISPCP HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ICANN BOARD'S DECISION TO APPROVE THE VERISIGN SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS. AFTER LISTENING TO THE RATIONALE OFFERED BY THOSE BOARD MEMBERS WHO VOTED IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION, THE ISPCP REMAINED CONVINCED THAT THE BASIS FOR THAT DECISION WAS FLAWED AND FAILED TO ADDRESS THE MANY CONCERNS RAISED NOT ONLY BY THE ISPCP BUT BY THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE ICANN COMMUNITY.
THE ISPCP WISHED TO UNDERLINE THAT THEY DO RECOGNIZE THE COMPLEX NATURE OF THIS ISSUE AND THE MANY DIFFICULT ASPECTS WHICH IMPACT. BUT STRESS THE POINT THAT IN SUCH SITUATIONS, FAR MORE OPEN, TWO-WAY DIALOGUE BETWEEN THOSE WHO MAKE THE FINAL DECISIONS AND THE COMMUNITY WHO HAVE OFFERED SUBSTANTIAL AND VALID INPUT TO THE PROCESS IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO A FINAL DECISION BEING TAKEN.
SUCH ACTION IS CONSIDERED AN ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENT FOR ANY BOARD RESPONSIBLE FOR TAKING DECISIONS ON BEHALF OF A BOTTOM-UP CONCENSUS DRIVEN ORGANIZATION.
BEING TOLD "WE HAVE LISTENED" NOT ENOUGH WHEN THE MANY POINTS RAISED HAVE RECEIVED MINIMUM ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF PUBLIC RESPONSE.
THE ISPCP WOULD LIKE TO PUBLICLY ACKNOWLEDGE THEIR GRATITUDE FOR BOARD MEMBERS WHO VOTED AGAINST THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT.
WE WOULD ALSO LIKE TO APPRECIATE THOSE WHO TOOK THE TIME AND INITIATIVE TO DESCRIBE THEIR RESPECTIVE RATIONALE AND DECISION-MAKING PROCESS.
BY POSTING INDIVIDUAL PUBLIC STATEMENTS EXPLAINING THE REASONS FOR THEIR STANCE ON THIS ISSUE, THESE BOARD MEMBERS REINFORCE THE BELIEF THAT ICANN SERVES A LARGE AND DIVERSE COMMUNITY, AS WELL AS THE NECESSITY FOR OPENNESS AND TRANSPARENCY WHICH SERVES AS A FUNDAMENTAL FACET OF ICANN. HAD ALL BOARD MEMBERS DONE THIS, THEY WOULD HAVE HAD ADDED MUCH TO THE LEGITIMACY OF THE PROCESS.
FINALLY, I WISH TO ADD THAT THIS STATEMENT WAS PRODUCED BY THE ISPCP IN ADVANCE OF THIS MORNING'S MEETING, AND WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT THE REMARKS MADE BY VINT THIS MORNING ON THE NEED FOR MORE TRANSPARENCY AND COMMUNICATION IS VERY MUCH WELCOME.
THANK YOU.

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: THANK YOU.
NEXT SPEAKER.

>>MARK HARRIS: HELLO.
MY NAME IS MARK HARRIS, FROM INTERNETNZ, SPEAKING FOR MYSELF.
THIS IS MY FIRST ICANN -- AND THAT'S MARK WITH A "K," BY THE WAY.
THIS IS MY FIRST ICANN, AND I'VE HEARD ALL THE STORIES ABOUT HOW THE OPEN MIKE IS FLAT ON THE FLOOR AND HOW THE PEOPLE GET REALLY UPSET.
AND IF FRANK THINKS THIS IS UNCIVIL, HE SHOULD COME TO AN INTERNETNZ MEETING SOMETIME.
I'D JUST LIKE TO MAKE A COUPLE OF POINTS ABOUT AND, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THIS IS MEANT CONSTRUCTIVELY AND NOT PERSONALLY, I FULLY RESPECT THAT EVERYONE ON THIS BOARD IS SINCERE ABOUT WHAT THEY'RE DOING, MEANS WHAT THEY HAVE SAID, AND THEY WANT THINGS TO HAPPEN.
BUT I URGE YOU TO BEWARE OF THE CORRUPTION OF RUST, OF FALLING INTO POSITION OF DOING NOTHING, OF MAKING NO CHANGE BECAUSE CHANGE IS HARD, FEAR CHANGE.
I LOOK AT THE DOT COM VERISIGN DECISION, AND I THINK SOME BATTLES ARE MEANT TO BE FOUGHT.
SOMETIMES YOU ACTUALLY HAVE TO STAND UP AND BE COUNTED, BECAUSE THE BATTLE IS WORTH HAVING FOR ITSELF, NOT NECESSARILY FOR THE END.
WHAT YOU'VE SAID NOW TO REGISTRARS AND BIG BUSINESS IS, "WE WILL SETTLE.
WE WILL BE BOUGHT, AS AN ORGANIZATION."
AND THAT'S A BAD THING TO TELL THEM.
THE SECOND POINT THAT I'D MAKE IS REALLY -- AND I WISH VINT WAS STILL HERE, BECAUSE HE LIKES POETRY -- RATHER THAN WALT WHITMAN, DYLAN THOMAS, "DON'T GO QUIETLY INTO THE GOOD NIGHT, BUT RAGE, RAGE, AGAINST THE DYING OF THE LIGHT."
THANK YOU.

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: NEXT SPEAKER.

>>SUSAN CRAWFORD: WE MAY NOT BE QUIETLY, BUT WE WILL GO DEHYDRATED AND HUNGRY.
I'M REALLY GRATEFUL FOR EVERYONE CONTINUING TO STAY HERE AND COME TO THE MIKE.

>>VITTORIO BERTOLA: THANK YOU.
THANK YOU.
AND WELL, I AM FALLING ASLEEP, SO I WILL TRY TO BE VERY FAST. AND PLEASE DON'T TAKE THIS -- I MEAN, I DON'T MEAN TO BE RUDE TO YOU.
I APPRECIATE ALL THE DIFFICULTIES OF SITTING ON THE ICANN BOARD THESE DAYS.
AT THE SAME TIME, I WANTED TO REITERATE THE SAME CONCERN THAT I HAVE BEEN EXPRESSING FOR THE LAST SEVEN, EIGHT ICANN MEETINGS AT THE PUBLIC FORUM EVERY TIME ABOUT HOW THIS IS -- THIS EVENT HAS GONE ASTRAY FROM ITS ORIGINAL PURPOSE, WHICH IS TO LET THE PUBLIC DISCUSS AND COMMENT AND INTERACT WITH THE BOARD BEFORE THE BOARD TAKES A DECISION.
AND NOW WE HAVE 95% OF THE TIME OCCUPIED BY REPORTS AND THEN 5% OF THE TIME FOR PUBLIC SPEAKING.
BUT, THEN, OF COURSE, YOU HAVE TO SAY KEEP IT TO THREE OR FIVE MINUTES BECAUSE AT 2:00 P.M. WE HAVE TO CLOSE.
THAT'S UNDERSTANDABLE, BUT THAT'S NOT RIGHT.
IT'S ACTUALLY A WARNING, BECAUSE I CARE ABOUT THIS ORGANIZATION.
I HAVE DEVOTED SEVERAL YEARS OF MY LIFE TO ICANN.
SO IT'S NOT A THREAT; IT'S A WARNING.
IS THAT ON THE INTERNET, THINGS ARE REALLY BOTTOM-UP BY NATURE.
SO I THINK THAT THE BEST PROOF OF HOW MUCH ICANN IS FAILING IS BY THE FACT THAT THIS ROOM IS PRACTICALLY EMPTY.
AND SOME MAY THINK THAT IF PEOPLE DON'T SHOW UP, I MEAN, THINGS ARE JUST GOING SMOOTHLY.
AND SO -- BUT THE FACT IS THAT IF PEOPLE DON'T SHOW UP, THEY WILL SHOW UP SOMEWHERE ELSE AND THEY WILL SET UP SOMETHING ELSE THAT SUITS THEIR NEEDS BETTER.
AND I GUESS THERE'S PLENTY OF PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE, AND ESPECIALLY WHO ARE NOT IN THE AUDIENCE ANYMORE, THAT WOULD BE ABLE TO SET UP ALTERNATE SYSTEMS TO WHAT ICANN IS MANAGING NOW.
AND THEY CAN STOP PAYING YOUR BILLS AT ANY TIME.
THEY CAN JUST JUMP OFF THE PROCESS IF THEY ARE NOT SATISFIED.
SO YOU CANNOT FORCE INSIDE A PROCESS OF THIS TYPE.
AND SOME -- THIS IS JUST MY WARNING.
I THINK THAT IN THE -- IT'S BETTER IF WE ALL TOGETHER REALLY THINK ABOUT HOW TO BRING BACK IN THE ROOM THE PEOPLE THAT WERE HERE THREE OR FOUR, FIVE YEARS AGO DISCUSSING VERY LIVELY, AND THEY ARE NOT HERE ANYMORE.
THANK YOU.

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: NEXT SPEAKER.
FROM THE AUDIENCE, FROM THE BOARD.
I'LL MAKE AN ATTEMPT TO A CLOSING COMMENT.
I THINK I CAN SPEAK FOR EVERY MEMBER OF THE BOARD BY SAYING THAT WE ARE THANKFUL FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO LISTEN TO THE COMMENTS WE HAVE BEEN READING AND RECEIVING.
MANY OF US MONITOR A NUMBER OF LISTS AND SHARE WHAT WE FIND, WHAT IS WRITTEN, AS VITTORIO HAS SAID, ONLINE AT THE DIFFERENT SPACE FROM VERY DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST.
IT GETS SHARED WIDELY AND DISCUSSED, MUCH OF IT PUBLICLY AND MUCH OF IT, BY NECESSITY, OR BY TIME RESTRAINTS, NOT NECESSARILY PUBLICLY.
THE DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT TO DO IN THE PUBLIC MEETINGS WITH THE REPORTS AND SO FORTH IS AN EXAMPLE OF THE DIFFICULTIES WE FACE IN MAKING THE SCHEDULES FOR THESE MEETINGS.
I THINK THAT THE CREATION OF A PROGRAM COMMITTEE FOR THE MEETINGS COMMITTEE -- WHICH IS ALREADY A COMMITTEE FOR A COMMITTEE -- IS A GOOD COMMITMENT.
MOST OF THE REPORTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE HERE AND MADE IN PUBLIC, BESIDES BEING MADE IN WRITING, HAVE BEEN REQUESTED BY DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE COMMUNITY.
EVERY PART OF OUR COMMUNITY WISHES TO SEE ITS CONCERNS ADDRESSED, AND ALMOST ALL PARTS OF OUR COMMUNITY COMPLAIN THAT THEY SEE TOO MUCH OF THE OTHERS.
WE HAVE PEOPLE WHO COMPLAIN ABOUT TOO MUCH TIME DEDICATED TO GTLDS BECAUSE THIS IS TAKING TIME FROM THE CCTLDS.
WE SEE COMPLAINTS THAT WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH TECHNICAL TALK.
WE SEE COMPLAINTS THAT WE HAVE TOO MUCH TECHNICAL TALK.
THERE'S A VERY DIFFICULT BALANCE TO STRIKE.
WHAT I CAN SAY RIGHT NOW -- AND WE ALSO -- SORRY.
ONE MORE POINT.
WE SEE THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE DOT COM AND VERISIGN AGREEMENTS TO CONTINUE TO DISPLEASE.
AND I WOULD URGE MR. HOLMES TO READ THE WHOLE THING, NOT ONLY THE PART HE LIKES.
BECAUSE THE PART HE DOESN'T LIKE HAS ALSO BEEN EXPLAINED, PART OF IT WITH A COLLECTIVE STATEMENT, PART OF IT WITH INDIVIDUAL STATEMENTS.
ALL OF THESE ARE PUBLIC.
AND IT MAY JUST HAPPEN THAT WE -- THAT HE AND OTHER PEOPLE DON'T SHARE THE SAME RATIONALE AS HAPPENS WITHIN THE BOARD.
SAME PREMISES HAVE LED TO DIFFERENT CONCLUSIONS, AND NOT BY FLAWED REASONINGS, BUT BY CONSIDERING DIFFERENT BALANCES INTO THE ISSUES.
THIS IS THE KIND OF THING THAT WE WILL HAVE TO CONTINUOUSLY FACE, THE COMMITMENTS WE ARE MAKING FOR MORE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION, MORE TRANSPARENT AND MORE INTENSE PARTICIPATION, CONFLICT, OF COURSE, WITH EFFICIENCY AND THE PRACTICALITY OF MEETINGS WHICH ARE ONLY BECOMING LONGER AND LONGER BECAUSE WE MEET WITH MORE AND MORE PEOPLE AND YET STILL FIND PEOPLE DISSATISFIED THAT THEY'RE NOT MEETING ENOUGH.
THESE KIND OF CONTRADICTIONS WILL BE HARD TO SOLVE, BUT I CAN EXPRESS FOR ALL OF THE BOARD MEMBERS THE COMMITMENT TO CONTINUE TO TRY TO MAKE OPTIMAL USE OF THE COMMUNITY TIME, OF THE TIME WE ARE TOGETHER WITH THE COMMUNITY AND OF THE AVAILABILITY OF MORE AND MORE ONLINE COLLABORATION TOOLS, MORE AND MORE WAYS TO COMMUNICATE BACK AND FORTH, AND TO BE ABLE TO NOT ONLY TO LISTEN, BUT TO EXPLICITLY SHOW BY RESPONDING AND BY DISCUSSING AND BY CHALLENGING SOME OF THE STATEMENTS MADE THAT WE ARE, INDEED, IN A DEEPLY-FELT DIALOGUE WITH THE COMMUNITY.
I WILL THANK EVERYBODY FOR STAYING UNTIL THIS LATE IN THIS SESSION, AND GLADLY WISH YOU BON APPETIT.
[ APPLAUSE ]

>>TONY HOLMES: EXCUSE ME.
ALEJANDRO, IF I MAY JUST MAKE A FINAL COMMENT.

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: YES, PLEASE, MR. HOLMES.

>>TONY HOLMES: I JUST WISH TO POINT OUT, IT ISN'T MR. HOLMES YOU WISH TO ADDRESS.
IT IS THE WHOLE ISP COMMUNITY AND INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS COMMUNITY.
THANK YOU.

>>ALEJANDRO PISANTY: THANK YOU.
I'M SURE THAT YOU WILL BE KIND ENOUGH TO DO SO IN OUR NAME.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
(1:52 P.M.)